report on strategic planning: priorities assessment and ...€¦ · report on strategic planning:...

Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Science

DRAFT FOR APPROVAL

OCTOBER 8, 2014

Report On Strategic Planning: Priorities Assessment And Budget Scenarios

i

DRAFT FOR APPROVAL 2014 FESAC STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORT

Preface Fusion, the energy source that powers our sun and the

stars, offers the promise of a nearly limitless high-density

energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases. Fusion

energy could therefore fulfill one of the basic needs of

modern civilization: abundant energy with excellent safety

features and modest environmental impact that is available

to all nations.

The quest for controlled fusion energy—replicating on

earth the energy of the Sun—is a noble scientific chal-

lenge. After six decades of research, magnetic fusion sci-

ence has successfully progressed to the threshold of the

magnetic fusion energy era. This is an era characterized by

burning plasma, steady-state operation, advanced materi-

als that can withstand the harsh environment inside a

fusion reactor, and safe regeneration of the fusion fuel from

within the reactor.

Throughout its history, the quest for fusion has been a

global effort with strong U.S. leadership, especially in diag-

nostics, experimental research, theory, simulation, and

computation. Now the world is engaged in a unique interna-

tional burning plasma experiment, ITER, to demonstrate the

net production of controlled fusion power. ITER is expected

to establish the scientific feasibility of magnetic fusion ener-

gy by resolving fusion nuclear science issues associated

with demonstrating practical fusion energy.

As the ITER construction project proceeds, internation-

al colleagues are building other large-scale facilities with

capabilities that complement those in the U.S. Their particu-

lar choices in developing these new international facilities

provide two opportunities for the U.S. The first is for the U.S.

to initiate and grow a new program in fusion nuclear sci-

ence, including the design of a new world-class facility, an

area not being addressed internationally. The second is for

the U.S. to selectively engage in international collaborations

to access parameter regimes not otherwise available in the

U.S. in preparation for the design of this new facility.

This strategic plan has been formulated to enhance

and direct areas of U.S. scientific and engineering leader-

ship in coordination with the rapidly expanding international

capabilities to realize the prospect of a global fusion energy

future at the earliest realistic date. This report provides the

basis of that plan with a 10-year vision with priority research

recommendations to position the U.S. to make decisive con-

tributions to fusion science in this new era.

The Panel members are indebted to the research com-

munity for its thoughtful previous studies and its broad input

to this report. The Panel considered this input, leaving no

options off the table and resolving conflicts when they

occurred, to reach a consensus. The U.S. fusion community

looks forward to this transformative era in fusion research,

which will lay the foundations for a world-leading subpro-

gram and facility in fusion nuclear science. The challenges

would be daunting for a single nation, but with renewed

commitment, investment, innovation, and collaboration, a

technological advance of immense benefit to the U.S. and

to the world will be at hand.

iii


Table of Contents

Preface i

Executive Summary v

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1

Chapter 2: Burning Plasma Physics: Foundations 7

Chapter 3: Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse 17

Chapter 4: Discovery Plasma Science 25

Chapter 5: Partnerships with Other Federal and International Research Programs 31

Chapter 6. Budgetary considerations 39

Appendices

Appendix A: Summary of Initiatives and Recommendations 45

Appendix B: Charge Letter 48

Appendix C: Panel Roster 50

Appendix D: Panel Process and Meetings 51

Appendix E: Community White Papers received for Status and Priorities, and Initiatives 52

Appendix F: Community Workshops and Presentations 61

Appendix G: Leveraging and Partnership Opportunities with DOE, other Federal and International Partners 65

Appendix H: References 71

v


Executive SummaryThe Strategic Planning Panel of the Fusion Energy Sciences

Advisory Committee (FESAC) was charged by the Department

of Energy’s Office of Science to assess priorities within the

DOE Fusion Energy Science domestic fusion program for

the next 10 fiscal years (2015 through 2024). In answering

the Charge, the Panel acknowledges the quality and value

of previous FESAC reports and Research Needs Work-

shops (Appendix H) and the outstanding input of the fusion

community.

The Panel concludes that with a bold 10-year strategy

the U.S. will continue as a world leader in fusion research.

This strategy includes resolving prioritized scientific and

technical gaps to allow the pursuit of the most promising

scientific opportunities leading to fusion energy develop-

ment and strengthening international partnerships. The

strategy also transitions the U.S. to a fusion energy program

bounded by realistic budgets and guided by a “2025

Vision.” The 2025 Vision, developed by this Panel, is the

starting point for this Strategic Plan and consists of the fol-

lowing elements:

• Enable US leadership in burning plasma science and

fusion power production research, including programs

planned for ITER—the world’s premier upcoming fusion

facility;

• Provide the scientific and technological basis for a U.S.

Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF)—a critical next

step towards commercial fusion power;

• Continue U.S. leadership in discovery plasma science,

fusion-related technology, and other areas needed to

realize the promise of fusion energy and develop the

future fusion workforce.

With this vision, the U.S. can participate significantly in the

successful operation of ITER, initiate a broad fusion nuclear

science program with the intent to construct, operate, and

host researchers at a U.S. Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

(FNSF), and create a pioneering research atmosphere for a

U.S. “Generation ITER-FNSF” workforce that is leading glob-

al scientific discoveries and technological innovation.

To realize Vision 2025, the Panel makes four primary

recommendations:

Control of Burning Plasmas

The FES experimental program needs an integrated and

prioritized approach to achieve significant participation by

the U.S. on ITER. Specifically, new proposed solutions will

be applied to two long-standing and ubiquitous issues rel-

evant to tokamak-based burning fusion plasma: dealing

with unwanted transients and dealing with the interaction

between the plasma boundary and material walls.

Fusion Predictive Modeling

The FES theory and simulation subprogram should develop

the modeling capability to understand, predict, and control

both burning, long pulse fusion plasmas, and plasma fac-

ing components. Such a capability, when combined with

experimental operational experience, will maximize the U.S.

operational contribution and the interpretation of ITER

results for long pulse, burning plasmas, as well as the

design requirements for future fusion facilities. This endeav-

or must encompass the regions from the plasma core

through surrounding materials and requires coupling non-

linear, multi-scale, multi-disciplinary phenomena in experi-

mentally validated, theory-based models.

Fusion Nuclear Science

A fusion nuclear science subprogram should be created to

provide the science and technology understanding for

informing decisions on the preferred plasma confinement,

materials, and tritium fuel-cycle concepts for a Fusion

Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF), a proposed U.S.-based

international centerpiece beyond 2025. FNSF’s mission

would be to utilize an experimental plasma platform having

a long-duration pulse (up to one million seconds) for the

complex integration and convergence of fusion plasma sci-

ence and fusion nuclear science.

Discovery Plasma Science

FES stewardship of basic plasma research should be

accomplished through peer-reviewed university, national

laboratory, and industry collaborations. In order to achieve

the broadest range of plasma science discoveries, the

research should be enhanced through federal agency

vi


par tnerships that include cost sharing of intermediate,

collaborative facilities.

These four recommendations are detailed in Chapters 2

through 5.

The experimental facilities available to implement

these recommendations are located in the U.S. and at

major international experiment sites. The international

experiments provide both access to unique magnetic

geometries and extended operating regimes unavailable

in the U.S. Those experiments should provide information

required to design an FNSF and, ultimately, a fusion dem-

onstration power plant.

The Panel collected information from the U.S. fusion

community over five months, including two three-day pub-

lic meetings. The community responded impressively with

innovative scientific and technical plans. The report will be

reviewed by FESAC and then submitted to the DOE’s

Office of Science. A finalized FES strategic plan will be

submitted to Congress by the January 2015 deadline.

As directed in the Charge Letter, the report assumes

U.S. participation in ITER, assesses priorities for the U.S.

domestic fusion program, and ranks these priorities based

on three funding scenarios with the FY14 enacted budget

level ($305M) as the baseline, and a fourth cost of living

budget scenario based on the FY15 President’s budget

request ($266M):

• Scenario 1: Modest growth (defined as 2.0% above

cost of living)

• Scenario 2: Cost of living

• Scenario 3: Flat funding

• Scenario 4: Cost-of-living (FY15 request)

The Panel worked in four subpanels:

1. Burning Plasma Foundations: the science of prediction

and control of burning plasmas ranging from the

strongly-driven to the self-heated state;

2. Burning Plasma Long Pulse: the science of fusion

plasmas and materials approaching and beyond

ITER-relevant heat fluxes, neutron fluences, and

pulse lengths;

3. Discovery Plasma Science: the science frontiers of fun-

damental plasma behavior; and

4. Partnerships with other U.S. and international programs.

The 2009 Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE) ReNeW Report, a

capstone document based on workshops by the fusion

community, identified 18 science and technology “Thrusts”

defined as needing “concerted research actions.” Those

Thrusts were considered in this report, along with commu-

nity input to the Panel in 2014 through presentations, Q&As,

and white papers (Appendix E). Closely-related Thrusts

were combined, and the prioritization of the Thrusts in met-

rics based on their importance to Vision 2025 led to the

formulation of four overarching Initiatives. These highest-

priority Initiatives are:

Tier 1

Control of deleterious transient events: This Initiative com-

bines experimental, theoretical, and simulation research to

understand highly damaging transients and minimize their

occurrence in ITER-scale systems.

Taming the plasma-material interface: This Initiative com-


understand and address the plasma-materials interaction

(PMI) challenges associated with long-pulse burning plas-

ma operation.

Tier 2

Experimentally validated integrated predictive capabilities:

This Initiative develops an integrated “whole-device” predic-

tive capability, and will rely on data from existing and

planned facilities for validation.

A fusion nuclear science subprogram and facility: This Initia-

tive will take an integrated approach to address the key sci-

entific and technological issues for harnessing fusion power.

Tier 1 Initiatives are higher priority than Tier 2 Initiatives.

Within a tier, the priorities are equal.

In concert with the above Initiatives, Discovery Plasma

Science will advance the frontiers of plasma knowledge to

ensure continued U.S. leadership.

vii


The U.S. fusion program is a critical piece of the world

effort to develop fusion power. These Initiatives represent

areas in which U.S. leadership is needed to assure world

progress toward this goal.

Descriptions of the Initiatives

Control deleterious transient events: Undesirable transients

in plasmas are ubiquitous but tolerable occurrences in

most present tokamak experiments, but could prevent regu-

lar operation of a burning plasma experiment on the scale

of ITER without frequent shutdown for repairs. To reduce

the threat of disruptions to tolerable levels in upcoming nu-

clear experiments, both passive and active control tech-

niques, as well as preemptive plasma shut down, will be

employed. The resolution of this long-standing challenge

within this ten-year period would open up the pathway to

robust pursuit of fusion energy development in the tokamak

configuration, the leading option for performing fusion nu-

clear science research.

Taming the plasma-material interface: The critically impor-

tant boundary region of a fusion plasma involves the transi-

t ion from the high-temperature plasma core to the

surrounding material. Understanding the specific proper-

ties of this boundary region that determine the overall plas-

ma confinement is a priority. At the same time, the

properties of this boundary region control the heat and

particle fluxes to material surfaces. The response of the

material surfaces influences the boundary and core plasma

characteristics. Understanding, accommodating, and con-

trolling this complex interaction—including selecting materi-

als to withstand this harsh environment while maintaining

high confinement—is a prerequisite for ITER success and

designing FNSF.

The Panel concluded that a cost-effective path to the

plasma-materials-interface challenge requires a new high-

power, high-fluence linear divertor simulator. Results from

this facility will be iterated with experimental results on suit-

ably equipped domestic and international tokamaks and

stellarators, as well as in numerical simulations.

Experimentally validated integrated predictive capabilities: The

coming decade provides an opportunity to break ground in

integrated predictive understanding that is urgently required

as the ITER era begins and plans are developed for the next

generation of facilities. Traditionally, plasma theory/computa-

tion provides models for isolated phenomena based on

mathematical formulations that have restricted validity

regimes. However, there are a growing number of situations

where coupling between the validity regime and the phe-

nomena is required in order to account for all relevant phe-

nomena. To understand and predict these situations

requires expanded computing capabilities strongly coupled

to enhancements in analytic theory and the use of applied

mathematics. This effort must be strongly connected to a

spectrum of plasma experimental facilities supported by a

vigorous diagnostics subprogram in order to provide crucial

tests of theory and allow for validation.

Fusion Nuclear Science: Several important near-term deci-

sions will shape the pathway toward practical fusion energy.

The selection of the plasma magnetic configuration (an

advanced tokamak, spherical torus, or stellarator) and plas-

ma operational regimes needs to be established based on

focused domestic and international collaborative long-

pulse, high-power research. Another need is the identifica-

tion of a viable approach to a robust plasma materials

interface that provides acceptably high heat flux capability

and low net erosion rates without impairing plasma perfor-

mance or resulting in excessive tritium entrapment. Materi-

als science research needs to be expanded to comprehend

and mitigate neutron-irradiation effects, and fundamental

fuel-cycle research is needed to develop a feasible tritium

generation and power-conversion blanket/first-wall concept.

A new fusion materials neutron-irradiation facility that lever-

ages an existing MW-level neutron spallation source is envi-

sioned as an attractive cost-effective option.

In concert with the above description of the Initia-

tives, Discovery Plasma Science subprogram elements can

provide transformational new ideas for plasma topics. DPS

research seeks to address a wide range of fundamental

science, including fusion, as outlined by the NRC Plasma

2010 report [Appendix H]. DPS activities are synergistic

viii


with the research mission of other federal agencies, and

significant opportunities exist to broaden the impact of DPS

through the development and expansion of strategic part-

nerships between FES and other agencies. Addressing fun-

damental science questions at the frontier of plasma

science requires a spectrum of laboratory experimental

facilities, from small-scale facilities with a single principal

investigator to intermediate-scale highly collaborative facili-

ties. Interactions between larger facilities found at national

laboratories and small and intermediate facilities will play

an important role in advancing DPS frontiers and in training

the next generation of plasma scientists. Universities train

the next generation of fusion researchers and support

graduate-student-scale experiments, and thus play a criti-

cal role in the DPS subprogram.

The Panel’s vision, recommendations, and Initiatives

motivate redirection of resources over the next ten years.

Investments in plasma technology and materials, fusion

nuclear science, modeling and simulation, and DIII-D and/

or NSTX-U upgrades will lead to advances in the high-prior-

ity areas listed in this report and will position the U.S. fusion

research program to be influential in emerging areas of

importance in fusion nuclear science beyond the ten-year

purview of the charge. Construction of two new facilities is

recommended: a prototypic high-power and high-fluence

linear divertor simulator; and an intense, neutron-irradiation

source for which leveraging an existing megawatt-level neu-

tron spallation source is cost effective. Under the budget

scenarios tasked to the Panel, resources for these invest-

ments should derive from a major facility or facilities being

closed, mothballed, and/or reduced in “run” weeks, and

reconsideration of DPS funding allocations. For all budget

scenarios the Panel recommends:

• increased international collaborations in targeted areas

of importance to the U.S. fusion program goals,

• the operation of at least one major domestic plasma

machine,

• the simultaneous operation of DIII-D and NSTX-U for 5

years, and

• C-Mod operations end.

C-MOD should close as soon as possible, consistent

with orderly transition of the staff and graduate students to

other efforts, including experiments at other facilities where

appropriate. The associated C-MOD research funds should

be maintained in full for research on other facilities, while

the operations funding should be redirected to the pro-

posed Initiatives. Prompt closure of C-MOD is necessary to

fund as quickly as possible the installation of necessary

upgrades at DIII-D, to build the linear divertor simulator, and

for the whole-plasma-domain modeling effort in the Predic-

tive Initiative. DIII-D experiments using these upgrades are

essential to achieve the Vision 2025 goals. The linear diver-

tor simulator and tokamak-divertor experiments should be

started as soon as feasible.

The Panel recognizes the intellectual leadership and

contributions from the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Cen-

ter. Scientists and engineers from this center should take

leadership roles in the proposed Initiatives. The five-year

operation of NSTX-U enables consideration of a spherical

torus magnetic geometry for FNSF. The five-year operation

of DIII-D provides optimal investigation of transient mitiga-

tion and plasma control for ITER. Below the Panel summa-

rizes timelines for facilities and Initiatives.

Phase I

• Alcator C-Mod operations ends;

• DIII-D is operating and information on transient mitiga-

tion, boundary physics, plasma control, and other ITER-

related research is being provided;

• NSTX-U is operating and information on a potential

path to a FNSR-ST, boundary physics, and ITER-related

research is being provided;

• Linear divertor simulator is under construction;

• Predictive Initiative is launched and grown;

• FNS subprogram is initiated;

• International par tnerships on leading international

superconducting advanced tokamaks and stellarators

are increased with the intention of supporting a long-

term engagement;

• Expanded integration of DPS elements facilitates the

effective stewardship of plasma science.

ix


Phase II

• Partnerships centered on current international super-

conducting advanced tokamaks and stellarators. Mini-

mum of one domestic faci l i ty (DIII-D, NSTX-U)

operating and providing information for the Interface

Initiative;

• Linear divertor simulator operating and providing infor-

mation for Interface Initiative;

• Predictive Initiative fully underway and providing infor-

mation in support of all Initiatives;

• FNS Initiative underway and expanding science and

technology for fusion materials, including a new neu-

tron-irradiation capability;

• DPS par tnerships advancing the frontiers of DPS

knowledge, enhanced by cost sharing on intermediate-

scale collaborative facilities.

Vision 2025 achieved depending on budget scenario (see

timeline in Chapter 6) with either DIII-D or NSTX-U, operat-

ing both for programmatic objectives and as a national user

facility for discovery science.

Implementation of the Initiatives is inherently tied to the four

budget scenario assumptions (FY2015–FY2024). The fund-

ing is bound on the high end by Budget Scenario 1 ($305M

with modest growth of 4.1% per year) and on the low end

by Budget Scenario 4 (FY2015 President’s Budget Request

of $266M with cost of living increase of 2.1% per year). As

an example of the variation for these two funding models,

Budget Scenario 4 starts out with $52M less than Budget

Scenario 1 in FY2015 and ends up with $135M per year

less in FY2024. From FY2015 through FY2024, the total inte-

grated amount differs by approximately $900M between the

low- and high-end budget scenarios.

The Panel explored a variety of funding scenarios for

the ReNeW Thrusts in order to derive credible funding pro-

files for the highest priority research activities. The Panel

projects the following probable consequences:

Scenario 1: 2014 Modest Growth

Modest growth of appropriated FY2014 ($305M) at 4.1%.

This has the highest integrated funding. Vision 2025 has an

acceptable probability of being achieved. Both NSTX-U

and DIII-D facilities operate for 5 years and possibly for 10

years (possibly at reduced availability in Phase II). If fund-

ing only one of the facilities is possible, it is not yet clear

which is optimal. After 10 years, it is expected that only one

facility is required, but at this time it is not clear which one.

One linear divertor simulator, one upgraded tokamak-divertor,

and a neutron-irradiation facility are operating. All four Ini-

tiatives go forward, including informing the design of

FNSF, and DPS funding adheres approximately to the

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

FES Domestic Program Budgets in As-Spent Dollars

Scenario 1: Modest Growth @ 4.1%

Scenario 2: C-O-L ($305M) @ 2.1%

Scenario 3: Flat Funding

Scenario 4: C-O-L ($266M) @ 2.1%

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

FY2024

x


modest growth intention. Both the divertor simulator and

neutron-irradiation capability are providing data. The U.S.

Fusion Program features prominently in four areas: Tran-

sients, Interface, Predictive, and importantly, FNS.

Scenario 2: 2014 Cost of Living

This has the second highest integrated funding, but at the

end of FY2024 these integrated funds are approximately

$400M less than in Budget Scenario 1. There is a lower

probability that Vision 2025 can be met. One of the two

remaining major tokamak facilities, DIII-D or NSTX-U, will be

closed or mothballed between 2020 and 2025. One linear

divertor simulator, one tokamak-divertor upgrade, and the

neutron-irradiation facility are available. Compared to Sce-

nario 1, DPS funds may be affected in addition to a further

effect on Foundations. Only one major tokamak facility is

required beyond 2025. All four Initiatives go forward, with

three (Transients, Interface, Predictive) being emphasized.

If necessary the Tier 2 Initiative FNS is slowed down. The

U.S. Fusion Program features prominently in at least three

Initiative areas: Transients, Interface, and Predictions, While

the U.S. program will remain influential in niche areas, the

prospect for U.S. leadership in the frontiers of fusion nucle-

ar science leading to energy development beyond the ten-

year vision is diminished, and progressively so as the

budget is reduced.

Scenario 3: 2014 Flat

This has the third highest integrated funding, but at the end

of FY2024 these integrated funds are approximately $780M

less than the highest budget, Budget Scenario 1. Vision

2025 will be only partially met. One of the two remaining

facilities, DIII-D or NSTX-U, will be closed or mothballed

between 2020 and 2025, earlier than in the Budget Scenario

2. DPS funds may be reduced slightly in addition to a small

further reduction in Foundations funds, e.g., the linear diver-

tor simulator and the upgraded tokamak-divertor are operat-

ing, but the neutron-irradiation facility may not be possible.

The two Tier 1 Initiatives (Transients, Interface) and one Tier

2 Initiative (Predictive) go forward, but the Tier 2 Initiative

FNS is slowed further. The U.S. Fusion Program features

prominently in two, Transients, Interface, or possibly three,

the third being the Predictive Initiative. Maintaining U.S.

leadership in any broad emerging area by the end of the

ten-year plan would be compromised, as the fusion nuclear

science component represents the key new element of U.S.

entry into fusion science development near the end of the

ten-year plan, even as the challenges addressed by the

Transients and Interface Initiatives would be pursued.

Scenario 4: 2015 Cost of Living

Integrated funding over the 10-year period is about $900M

less than Budget Scenario 1. Vision 2025 will be only par-

tially met and the second (Predictive) of the two Tier 2 Ini-

tiatives is lost. One of the two remaining facilities, DIII-D or

NSTX-U, will be closed or mothballed around 2020, which

may be earlier than in the Budget Scenario 3. DPS funds

will be reduced slightly in addition to a small further reduc-

tion in Foundations funds, e.g., one or both of the linear

divertor simulator, the upgraded tokamak-divertor may not

be possible in spite of closing a second major facility

around 2020. It is expected that the U.S. will be influential in

the research fields encompassed by the two Tier-1 Initia-

tives, specifically Transients and Interface. The necessary

delay to the FNS and Predictive Initiatives will leave signifi-

cant obstacles in the path to fusion power precisely where

the U.S. is best situated to lead the way. While the U.S.

could maintain a significant role in resolving the two Tier I

Initiatives, the delay to the other two Initiatives cedes the

leading role in these areas to the international programs.

The U.S. would be in a weak position to proceed as an inno-

vative center of fusion science beyond 2025.

Focused effort on the four proposed highest-priority Initia-

tives, together with existing strengths in diagnostics, exper-

imental research, theory, simulation, and computation, will

promulgate a vibrant U.S. fusion energy sciences program

that can lead in emerging fusion nuclear science research.

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

1


Fusion Science: A Forward Look

Harnessing fusion energy offers enormous potential for

improving the global quality of life by providing an abun-

dant, inherently safe, and environmentally benign supply of

energy. Seven governmental agencies representing more

than half of the world’s population (China, the European

Union, India, Korea, Japan, Russia, and the U.S.) have unit-

ed in an unprecedented collaboration to build ITER, a mag-

netic confinement fusion reactor experiment that is

expected to be a major step forward in the quest for com-

mercial fusion energy. Scientists anticipate that ITER, under

construction in Saint Paul-lez-Durance, France, will produce

500 megawatts of fusion thermal power, demonstrating the

feasibility of large-scale fusion energy.

In addition to its engagement in the ITER project and

collaborations on other international fusion projects, the

U.S. operates mature domestic fusion facilities. The overall

U.S. fusion program is categorized into three “Burning Plas-

ma” thematic areas that focus on conditions relevant to:

Burning Plasma High Power (not considered here per spec-

ification in the charge); Foundations; and Long Pulse. An

essential fourth component comprises an impressive range

of basic and applied plasma science that is not directly

part of the burning plasma subprograms: Discovery Plas-

ma Science (DPS). This component is open, innovative, and

contributing to industry, health, space science, and funda-

mental plasma science.

Research on U.S. fusion facilities encompasses numer-

ous activities highly regarded for their scientific excellence

and innovative nature. For example, the U.S. has been a

major par ticipant in the International Tokamak Physics

Activity (ITPA) as a result of the technical contributions from

its three major toroidal confinement facilities and related

U.S. theory and simulation activities. Although the U.S. facil-

ities undergo routine upgrades to better address areas of

strong scientific interest as they develop in importance, in

recent years international collaborators have made far more

significant investments in their fusion research programs

and, as a result, are developing experimental capabilities

that soon will far exceed those in the U.S. These include,

but are not limited to, large toroidal confinement devices

(tokamaks and stellarators) outfitted with superconducting-

magnet coils that enable high-performance plasmas to be

created and confined for the extended durations ultimately

required to develop the scientific and technical bases of

continuous fusion energy production.

While the U.S. is not currently poised for a major fusion

investment in a new toroidal fusion facility comparable to

those abroad, opportunities are available to advance the

domestic fusion program in areas of current U.S. strength

and to invest in important emerging high-priority areas of

fusion research. To do so, the U.S. should arrange to con-

duct some research activities on the international facilities

in order to pursue its objectives in more relevant fusion con-

ditions. The U.S. should also extend its research vision into

the area of fusion nuclear science that is a necessary pre-

cursor to fusion energy development. The relevant elements

of fusion nuclear science are described in later chapters,

but broadly speaking, mastery of fusion nuclear science

will bridge the gap between demonstrating the confinement

of high-performance plasmas and the development of

practical fusion energy. In addition to developing solutions

for plasma-facing materials that are tolerant of neutron irra-

diation, tritium recovery and breeding, and other challeng-

es, there will be a need for a Fusion Nuclear Science

Facility (FNSF). The FNSF is presently conceived to be a

long-pulse plasma-confinement facility that will be a bridge

between ITER and an eventual demonstration reactor.

Developing the scientific and technical basis for the step to

such a facility is challenging, but necessary. If the U.S. seiz-

es this opportunity to pursue development of an FNSF, it will

exert leadership in fusion nuclear science. Taking advan-

tage of these two opportunities, together with our existing

strengths in diagnostics, experimental research, theory,

simulation, and computation, would result in a vibrant U.S.

fusion energy program that has a new focus and contributes

in unique and critical ways to global fusion energy needs.

The U.S. suppor ts highly visible and productive

research programs in the area of fundamental discovery

plasma science and engineering. Knowledge generated by

these subprograms advances our understanding of natural

phenomena such as space weather, solar dynamics, and

supernova explosions. The discoveries are often used in

2


technological devices—ranging from etching and deposi-

tion of materials in microelectronics fabrication to surgical

instruments—that benefit everyday life. Fundamental plas-

ma science research has laid the groundwork for the mag-

netic fusion plasma science effort that has brought us to

the brink of the fusion energy era. Stewardship of this vital

research subprogram will result in continued fundamental

science discovery and application innovation.

The Discovery Plasma Science subprogram is a major

source of support for university programs that play the key

role in developing the future fusion workforce through

recruiting and training students in experiment, theory, and

computation from the undergraduate to the postdoctoral

level. Universities can help improve the diversity of the

workforce, which is a critical issue. University training and

the university environment can also help develop the skills

and perspectives necessary for effective teamwork.

The discussion above frames the Panel’s vision for the

U.S. fusion energy sciences program for the next ten years,

referred to as Vision 2025, to participate significantly in the

successful operation of ITER, initiate a broad fusion nuclear

science program with the intent to construct, operate, and

host researchesr at a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

(FNSF), and create a pioneering research atmosphere for a

“Generation ITER-FNSF” workforce that is leading global

scientific discoveries and technological innovation.

• Enable US leadership in burning plasma science and

fusion power production research, including programs

planned for ITER.

• Provide the scientific and technological basis for a U.S.

Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) —a critical next

step towards commercial fusion power.

• Continue US leadership in discovery plasma science,

fusion-related technology, and other areas necessary to

realizing the promise of fusion energy and developing

the future fusion workforce.

Meeting the Charge

In April 2014, FESAC was given a Charge by DOE to assess

the priorities among continuing and new scientific, engi-

neering, and technical research subprogram investments

within and between each of three FES subprograms:

1. The science of prediction and control of burning plas-

ma ranging from the strongly-driven state to the self-

heated state. This subprogram is labeled Burning

Plasma Science: Foundations (referred to in this report

as Foundations).

2. The science of fusion plasmas, plasma-material inter-

actions, engineering and materials physics modeling

and experimental validation, and fusion nuclear science

approaching and beyond ITER-relevant heat fluxes,

neutron fluences, and pulse lengths. This subprogram

is labeled Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse

(referred to as Long Pulse).

3. The study of laboratory plasmas and the high-energy-

density state relevant to astrophysical phenomena, the

development of advanced measurement validation,

and the science of plasma control important to indus-

trial applications. This subprogram is labeled Discovery

Plasma Science (referred to as DPS).

In order for FES to provide Congress with a Strategic Plan by

January 2015 as requested in the Fiscal Year 2014 Omnibus

Appropriations Act, the DOE-SC asked FESAC:

• to prioritize the FES defined subprograms,

• to include FESAC views on new facilities, new research

initiatives, and facility closures,

• to establish a scientific basis for advancing fusion

nuclear science, and

• to assess the potential for strengthened or new partner-

ships with other federal agencies and international

research programs that foster opportunities otherwise

unavailable to U.S. fusion scientists.

3


A 19-member FESAC Strategic Planning Panel, consisting of

FESAC members and outside experts, was convened in May

2014 to respond to the Charge in a report that the Panel pre-

sented during the FESAC September 22–23, 2014 meeting.

Although the Panel was aware of the subprogram ele-

ments of the fusion program described and prioritized by pre-

vious FESAC reports, the Panel understood the need for

additional U.S. fusion community input as a basis for a report

that would address the Charge’s specific budget scenarios

for advancing FES subprograms. Community input on initia-

tives for FES for the next ten years relevant to Foundations,

Long Pulse, and DPS were presented during two public meet-

ings (June 3–5 and July 8–10, 2014). The U.S. and interna-

tional fusion communities were encouraged to submit white

papers that were posted for public viewing on the Panel web-

site found at https://www.burningplasma.org/activities.

The Panel was organized into four subpanels, three

representing the three FES subprograms (Foundations,

Long Pulse, DPS), and one representing leverage and part-

nership opportunities with other federal programs and inter-

national programs. These subpanels considered key FESAC

and community reports, including:

• Priorities, Gaps and Opportunities: Towards A Long-

Range Strategic Plan For Magnetic Fusion Energy (2007);

• Research Needs for Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences

(2009);

• Report of the FESAC Subcommittee on the Priorities of

the Magnetic Fusion Energy Science Program (2013);

• Opportunities for and Modes of International Collabora-

tion in Fusion Energy Sciences Research during the

ITER Era (2012);

• Opportunities for Fusion Materials Science and Tech-

nology Research Now and During the ITER Era (2012);

• Low Temperature Plasma Science Workshop (2008);

Plasma Science: Advancing Knowledge in the National

Interest (2007);

• Basic Research Needs for High Energy Density Labora-

tory Physics (2010);

• Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics

(2010); and Prioritization of Proposed Scientific User Facil-

ities in the Office of Science report (2013) [Appendix H].

Each subpanel, following the 10-year approached established

in Vision 2025, identified candidate initiatives, primary and

supporting recommendations, and minimum funding require-

ments. The Panel integrated and iterated these findings (see

Appendix A), resulting in four high priority Initiatives that would

be pursued over ten years under a majority of the budget

scenarios. These Initiatives were further ranked into upper and

lower tiers, with an understanding that those in the lower tier

would be delayed under the lower budget scenarios.

Initiatives and Recommendations

In Chapters 2 and 3, the Thrusts relevant to Foundations and

Long Pulse will be individually discussed. In those sections the

eighteen science and technology Thrusts from the 2009

ReNeW Report are considered, along with valuable community

input to the Panel in 2014 through presentations, question and

answer sessions, and white papers (c.f., Appendix X). Closely

related Thrusts that addressed an overarching topic were com-

bined into an overarching Initiative. Prioritization of the Thrusts

in terms of metrics that included their importance to Vision

2025 directly led to formulation of four overarching Initiatives.

The four highest priority Initiatives, categorized in two tiers, are:

Tier 1: Transients, Interface

Control of deleterious transient event: This Initiative com-


understand highly damaging transients and minimize their

occurrence in ITER-scale systems.

Taming the plasma-material interface: This Initiative com-


understand and address the plasma-materials interaction

(PMI) challenges associated with long-pulse burning plas-

ma operation.

Tier 2: Predictive, FNS

Experimentally-validated integrated predictive capabilities:

This Initiative develops an integrated “whole-device” predic-

tive capability, and will rely on data from existing and

planned facilities for validation.

4


A fusion nuclear science subprogram and facility: This Ini-

tiative will take an integrated experimental, theoretical, and

computational approach to address the key scientific and

technological issues for harnessing fusion power.

Tier 1 Initiatives are higher priority than Tier 2 Initiatives.

Within a tier, the priorities are equal.

In concert with the above Initiatives, Discovery Plasma

Science will advance the frontiers of plasma knowledge to

ensure continued U.S. leadership.

The U.S. Fusion program is a critical piece of the world

effort to develop fusion power. These Initiatives represent

areas in which U.S. leadership is needed to assure world

progress toward this goal.

Descriptions of the Initiatives

Transients: Control deleterious transient events

Undesirable transients in plasmas are ubiquitous but toler-

able occurrences in most present tokamak experiments,

but could prevent regular operation of a burning plasma

experiment of the scale of ITER and future devices without

frequent shutdown for repairs. To reduce the threat of dis-

ruptions, the Panel recommends a robust multi-level strate-

gy evolving from present experiments and improving

predictive modeling.

Interface: Taming the plasma-material interface

The critically important boundary region of a fusion reactor

includes the transition from the high-temperature, confined

plasma core to the low-temperature material structure that

surrounds the plasma. The fusion power generated in the

core plasma is directly impacted by the structure and

behavior of the boundary region. Steep plasma-pressure

profiles having large gradients at the edge of the core plas-

ma (termed the H-mode pedestal) are essential to support

a sustained high-pressure (and therefore high-fusion-pow-

er) core plasma. Understanding the processes that allow

these large gradients to form and affect plasma stability is

a priority. Heat and particle exhaust from the high-power

fusion-power core flows through the pedestal region into a

thin layer termed the scrape-off layer (SOL) that surrounds

the core plasma. This exhaust is conducted through this

thin layer to material structures surrounding the plasma.

The properties of the thin surrounding layer (its width in

particular) ultimately determine the intensity of the heat and

particle fluxes that become established. The engineering

solution for these material structures is strongly constrained

by this intensity.

Understanding the physics of the thin surrounding lay-

er and seeking solutions to control how this flux impinges

on material surfaces is therefore a high priority. Materials

must be engineered to withstand this harsh environment.

Predictive: Experimentally validated integrated predic-

tive capabilities

The coming decade provides an oppor tunity to break

ground in the integrated predictive understanding that is

required as the ITER era begins and plans are developed

for the next generation of facilities. Traditionally, plasma the-

ory and simulation provide models for isolated phenomena

based on mathematical formulations that are only strictly

valid over a limited region of the plasma or restricted to

particular spatial and temporal scales. Hence, DOE has his-

torically organized its funded theory and simulation enter-

prises by topical element (e.g., radio-frequency heating,

extended MHD, turbulent transpor t, etc.). While gaps

remain in these elements, the U.S. theory and simulation

subprogram has provided many contributions to improved

predictive understanding and has spearheaded validation

efforts on a variety of experimental configurations. However,

there are crucial areas of fusion science for which coupling

of topical elements is required to further understand and

attain predictive capability. Examples include active control/

mitigation modeling of deleterious MHD instabilities, core-

edge coupling, plasma-surface interaction, 3D-field effects

on edge/pedestal properties, etc. The strong coupling of

physics phenomena implies that new phenomena mecha-

nisms can appear that cannot generally be predicted with

theory tools that rely on single-component phenomenon

models. This kind of transformational change in our under-

standing of the overall behavior, physics, and processes is

critical if we are to aim for true predictive modeling. These

5


advances can be made with expanded computing capa-

bilities strongly coupled to enhancements in analytic theory

and applied mathematics understanding. This effort must

be strongly connected to a spectrum of plasma experimen-

tal facilities supported by a vigorous diagnostics subpro-

gram in order to provide a platform for validating theory with

experiment.

FNS: A fusion nuclear science subprogram and facility

Several near-term decisions will shape the pathway toward

practical fusion energy. The selection of the plasma con-

figuration (AT vs. ST, tokamak vs. stellarator) and plasma

operational regimes need to be established on the basis of

focused domestic and international collaborative long-

pulse, high-power research. There is also a need for the

identification of a viable approach to a robust plasma mate-

rials interface that tolerates acceptably high heat flux capa-

bility and provides low net erosion rates without impairing

plasma performance or tritium entrapment. Materials sci-

ence research must be expanded to comprehend intense

fusion neutron-irradiation effects on property degradation

of structural materials and to design potential materials sci-

ence approaches to mitigate these degradation phenome-

na. A new fusion materials neutron-irradiation facility that

takes advantage of an existing magawatt-level neutron

spallation source is envisioned as a cost-effective option.

Fundamental research is needed to identify a feasible triti-

um fuel-cycle and power-conversion concept, including

improved understanding of the permeation and trapping of

tritium inside candidate coolants and fusion materials,

exploration of viable methods for efficiently extracting triti-

um from hot flowing media, and improved understanding of

complex magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) effects on the flow

of electrically conductive coolants in confined channels.

Acquisition of new knowledge in all of these fusion nuclear

science research areas is needed in order to provide the

scientific basis for the conceptual design of a Fusion

Nuclear Science Facility.

In concert with the above Initiatives, effective DPS subpro-

gram elements can provide transformational ideas for plas-

ma topics. DPS research addresses a wide range of

fundamental science, including fusion, as outlined by the

NRC Plasma 2010 report. DPS activities are synergistic with

the research mission of other federal agencies, and oppor-

tunities exist to broaden the impact of DPS through the

expansion of strategic partnerships between FES and other

agencies. Addressing fundamental science questions at the

frontier of plasma science requires a spectrum of labora-

tory experimental facilities from small-scale facilities led by

a single investigator to intermediate-scale, highly collabora-

tive facilities. The development of intermediate-scale and

multi-investigator facilities would be prioritized to address a

wider range of scientific questions with comprehensive

diagnostic suites. Mutual interactions between larger facili-

ties found at national laboratories and smaller facilities will

play an important role in advancing DPS frontiers and in

training the next generation of plasma scientists. These Ini-

tiatives, together with the findings of the DPS subpanel, are

transposed into four primary recommendations listed in the

Executive Summary.

Chapter 2

Burning Plasma Physics: Foundations

7


Foundations: Definition and status

The Foundations subprogram encompasses fundamental

and applied research pertaining to the magnetic confine-

ment of plasmas with emphasis on ITER and future burning

plasmas. Both experimental and theoretical contributions

are included in Foundations. The key objectives are to

establish the scientific basis for the optimization of

approaches to magnetic confinement fusion based on the

tokamak (including the spherical torus), increase the pre-

dictive understanding of burning plasma behavior, and

develop technologies that enhance the performance of

both existing and next-step machines.

The elements of the subprogram are:

• The research and operations of three major U.S.

machines, the DIII-D tokamak located at General Atom-

ics, the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade

(NSTX-U) at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

(PPPL), and the C-MOD tokamak at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT). Infrastructure improve-

ments to these facilities are included, but activities per-

taining to steady-state operation and fusion nuclear

science are part of the Long Pulse category.

• Theory and Scientific Discovery Through Advanced

Computing (SciDAC) activities.

• Smaller tokamak projects.

• Heating, fueling and transient mitigation research.

The DIII-D research goal is to establish the scientific basis for

the optimization of the tokamak approach (Advanced Toka-

mak) to magnetic confinement. DIII-D research activities also

address near-term scientific issues critical to the successful

construction of ITER, including tests of the feasibility of dis-

ruption mitigation and ELM reduction on ITER and develop-

ing the scientific basis for both the standard operating

scenario to achieve high-gain fusion and the more advanced

long-pulse operating scenario. These issues are also perti-

nent to the mission of a future FNFS. Present activities also

include experimental validation of transport theoretical models

and testing the simultaneous achievement of high-performance

core plasmas with fusion-relevant edge scenarios.

The primary mission of the NSTX-U subprogram ele-

ment is to evaluate the potential of the low-aspect ratio

tokamak, or spherical torus, to achieve the sustained high

performance required for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility.

ITER-relevant research on NSTX-U includes energetic par-

ticle behavior and high-beta disruption control. Innovative

plasma-material-interaction (PMI) solutions are another

impor tant element of this program. The ITER-relevant

research will also address energetic particle behavior and

high-b disruption control.

The C-Mod research mission is to help establish the

plasma physics and engineering requirements for a burning

plasma tokamak experiment, with FY 2015 research focus-

ing on experiments that address issues of ITER-relevant

boundary and divertor physics, as well as disruption-mitiga-

tion studies.

Theory and simulation research advances the scientific

understanding of fundamental physical processes govern-

ing the behavior of magnetically confined plasmas and

develops predictive capability by exploiting leadership-

class computing resources.

Smaller tokamak projects center on innovative niche

issues of the AT and ST configurations. These projects

include the spherical torus LTX at the Princeton Plasma

Physics Lab to study liquid-metal PFC solutions, Pegasus at

the University of Wisconsin with the mission to study non-

solenoidal startup and edge stability, and the HBT-EP toka-

mak at Columbia University to develop MHD mode control

in high-ß plasmas.

Thrusts

The Panel has selected the priorities of the 10-year pro-

gram from the key science and engineering topics identi-

fied in FESAC’s Priorities, Gaps, and Opportunities report

of 2007 and the Research Needs for Magnetic Fusion Ener-

gy ReNeW report of 2009. For example, the ReNeW report

surveyed the range of scientific and technological research

frontiers of fusion science and identified eighteen Thrusts

determined by specific research needs. Many of the

Thrusts are interrelated, some in ways not fully understood

8


at the present time. Most must be addressed to move to a

program in fusion energy. The subset of the Thrusts select-

ed in this report as the highest priorities are evaluated

according to the metrics described in Appendix A. The

research drivers for the Thrusts are:

Thrust 1: Develop measurement techniques to understand

and control burning plasmas.

Thrust 2: Control transient events in burning plasmas.

Thrust 3: Understand the role of alpha particles in burning

plasmas.

Thrust 4: Qualify operational scenarios and the supporting

physics basis for ITER.

Thrust 5: Expand the limits for controlling and sustaining

fusion plasmas.

Thrust 6: Develop predictive models for fusion plasmas,

supported by theory and challenged with experimental

measurement.

Thrust 7: Exploit high-temperature superconductors and

other magnet innovations.

Thrust 8: Understand the highly integrated dynamics of

dominantly self-heated and self-sustained burning plasmas.

Thrust 9: Unfold the physics of boundary layer plasmas.

Thrust 10: Decode and advance the science and technology

of plasma-surface interactions.

Thrust 11: Improve power handling through engineering

innovation.

Thrust 12: Demonstrate an integrated solution for plasma-

material interface compatible with an optimized core plasma.

Thrust 13: Establish the science and technology for fusion

power extraction and tritium sustainability.

Thrust 14: Develop the material science and technology

needed to harness fusion power.

Thrust 15: Create integrated designs and models for

attractive fusion power systems.

Thrust 16: Develop the spherical torus to advance fusion

nuclear science

Thrust 17: Optimize steady-state, disruption-free toroidal

confinement using 3-D magnetic shaping.

Thrust 18: Achieve high-performance toroidal confinement

using minimal externally applied magnetic field.

According to the Charge’s guideline to separate research

issues into the categories provided by FES, eight of these

Thrusts (1–6, 9, and 16) pertain to the category of Founda-

tions and are relevant for this chapter, which focuses on

fusion science carried out in tokamaks and spherical toka-

maks. Most of the remaining Thrusts (7, 10–15, and 17) are

discussed in the next chapter on Long Pulse, and Thrust 18

is discussed in Ch. 4 on DPS. Several Thrusts overlap with

each other and are important across FES subprograms.

Priorities

The Panel concludes that three subprogram elements within

Foundations should have high priority over the next ten

years. The Transients Initiative and the Interface Initiative

are accorded the highest priority and the Predictive Initia-

tive has the next highest priority. Close coupling between

theory/simulation and experimental research is optimal for

making advances in the proposed activities.

Transients

Avoiding the consequences of deleterious transients is

essential in a fusion power plant. The two primary concerns

for large tokamaks, including ITER, are disruptions (sudden

loss of plasma confinement, followed by a rapid decline of

the plasma current) and edge-localized modes (ELMs) that

result in periodic bursts of heat and particles from the outer

region of a high-confinement plasma (so-called pedestal of

density and temperature) to the plasma-facing material of

the divertor and wall. While they are tolerable phenomena

in present tokamak experiments, they are forecast to be too

destructive in a facility of the scale of ITER or DEMO, the

demonstration fusion plant

9


that would build upon the experimental success of ITER.

Disruptions can have the following consequences:

• Enhanced energy flux to the divertor and wall;

• Large electromagnetic loads on the vacuum vessel due

to halo currents;

• Localized energy/particle flux due to runaway electrons.

While ELMs have the beneficial effect of reducing the influx

of impurities to the core of the plasma, they can also deliver

large transient heat fluxes to the divertor. In plasmas of the

scale of ITER, FNSF, and DEMO, the impulsive heat flux is

predicted to exceed the safe thermal power thresholds of the

plasma-facing material in the divertor unless it is mitigated.

The urgency of this Transients Thrust is driven by the

necessity to operate ITER with as few disruptive events as

possible in order to meet the facility’s objective of sustained

fusion power production. Demonstrated control of disrup-

tions is considered even more impor tant for either an

advanced or spherical tokamak as the confinement config-

uration of an FNSF. Mitigation of disruptions is becoming a

standard protective technique in large tokamaks, and the

U.S. is responsible for providing the appropriate hardware

for ITER. Furthermore, several successful techniques for

reducing the pulsed heat loads from ELMs are under inves-

tigation around the world. U.S. scientists are in the forefront

of all of these research areas.

Interface

Developing boundary solutions (Interface Initiative) is the

other priority in Foundations. The boundary region of a fusion

reactor comprises the transition from the high-temperature,

magnetically confined plasma core to the lower-temperature

material that surrounds the plasma. Heat and par ticle

exhaust from the hot plasma core flows through the mag-

netic separatrix into the thin scrape-off-layer (SOL) sur-

rounding the plasma in which the magnetic field lines termi-

nate on the material surroundings. Magnetic divertors near

the wall disperse the exhausted power over a broad area

and neutral gas in the divertor and SOL can convert much

of the incident heat flux to radiation, which also serves to

disperse the exhaust heat over a large surface area.

Understanding the phenomena taking place within the

boundary region is important because the density and tem-

perature of the core plasma (and hence the fusion power

generated in a burning plasma) is remarkably dependent

on the behavior of the boundary region. A steep plasma-

pressure profile having a large gradient at the edge of the

core plasma constitutes a local barrier (reduction) to the

transport of heat and particles into the scrape-off layer.

This barrier is essential to maintaining a sufficiently high

temperature core plasma in the burning plasma regime.

The edge-localized modes, mentioned above, periodically

collapse this pedestal. Understanding the processes that

allow this pedestal to form, regulate its magnitude, and

impact its stability is critical.

The magnetic geometry of the scrape-off layer and the

plasma and atomic processes taking place within it ulti-

mately determine the intensity of the heat and particle flux-

es to the walls and divertor. The engineering solution for

these material structures is strongly constrained by this

magnitude of the intensity of the fluxes that get established.

Materials must be engineered to withstand this harsh envi-

ronment; challenges include potentially unacceptable mate-

rial erosion and redeposition from intense particle fluxes,

excessive tritium entrainment in redeposited layers, and

high heat flux melting of plasma facing armor and associ-

ated thermal fatigue damage to underlying structures.

Recent scaling studies from a variety of tokamaks indicate

that the heat flux to the ITER divertor is predicted to be sev-

eral times higher than the previously accepted values. The-

ory and simulation applied to the edge region to provide

predictive understanding for ITER and beyond is not as

developed as for other plasma phenomena. Understanding

the physics of the scrape-off layer and developing solu-

tions that control how this flux impinges on material surfac-

es is a high priority. Several potential approaches for

mitigating some of these plasma-materials interaction

effects have been proposed but need to be explored theo-

retically and on appropriate linear plasma-materials-interaction

facilities and tokamaks.

In summary, edge plasma physics is an area in which

the level of technical readiness needs to be raised to pre-

pare for ITER research and the development of FNSF.

10


Predictive

Integrated predictive capability (Predictive Initiative) is the

next priority in the Foundations area. The essence of scien-

tific understanding is the development of predictive models

based on foundational theory that is validated against

experimental measurements. This Thrust combines analytic

theory, computational modeling, and experimental valida-

tion to establish predictive capability that links the science

of different regions in the plasma and topical areas of plas-

ma physics. This capability is necessary for reliable extrap-

olation to the operating regimes, i.e., that integrates the

diverse physics of multiple phenomena occurring within the

different regions of the whole plasma device that will take

place in ITER and successor devices. The combination of

increasing computational power and the cost of future

experiments make this Thrust extremely timely; advances in

integrated modeling are considered essential when it comes

to designing a device of the scale and scope of FNSF.

At present, the U.S. is the leader in theory and simula-

tion in several areas of fusion energy science. That success

is mostly due to the close coordination with the experimen-

tal facilities that allow examination of a broad range of plas-

ma parameters and focus.

In a number of topical areas, relatively mature develop-

ment in the U.S. theory and simulation subprogram element

exists. These areas include core transport, extended mag-

netohydrodynamics, energetic particles, radio-frequency

heating, and 3D-field effects, with support provided by both

base theory and DOE’s Scientific Discovery through

Advanced Computing (SCIDAC) programs that target indi-

vidual topical areas. However, there are other areas in

which substantial development is required. These areas

include pedestal physics, scrape-off-layer/divertor, plasma-

surface interaction, and material science. While gaps

remain in these areas, the U.S. theory and simulation sub-

program has provided many contributions that successfully

predict experimental phenomena.

Initiatives

The scientific priorities identified above and in succeeding

chapters motivate a high-priority set of research activities,

or Initiatives, that should occupy a central role in the U.S.

program over the next ten years. While the Initiatives do not

capture the full scope of fusion research that should be

carried out, they reflect the Panel’s judgment on where the

research could take intelligent advantage of U.S. capabili-

ties, where the research is likely to have a major impact in

fusion science, and where the research positions the U.S.

for leading roles in fusion energy development within and

beyond the scope of the ten-year plan.

Controlling transient events

The major domestic experimental subprogram elements will

focus on U.S. scientists playing influential roles on ITER. As

part of its strategy of playing influential roles on ITER, the

U.S. program will sustain its attack on controlling edge

localized modes and disruptions. The Panel believes that

the favorable and timely resolution of these challenges ben-

efits from a distinct strategic Thrust that is coupled with

boundary physics research and predictive modeling.

Although there have been notable advances over the years

of experience with tokamaks, there remains a strong moti-

vation to gain a deeper scientific understanding of the tran-

sient events and of the actuators proposed to control them

under a variety of plasma conditions. The Transients Initia-

tive seeks to reduce the effects of ELMs and disruptions in

ITER and simultaneously develop more reliable predictive

models to employ in the design of future burning plasma

experiments in which the plasma is less tolerant to transient

events, the control actuators less accessible, and the con-

sequences to reliable operation more severe. The success-

ful resolution of these challenges within the next ten years

would open a path to the steady-state tokamak as a pro-

spective facility for fusion nuclear science and DEMO.

Strategic international partnerships are required over

the next decade to investigate key scientific issues, specifi-

cally collaborations that exploit the unique capabilities of

superconducting long pulse tokamaks such as EAST,

KSTAR, the JET-sized superconducting tokamak JT-60SA,

11


which will start operation in 2019, and stellarators including

LHD and W7-X.

ELMs commonly occur in the pedestal region near the

boundary of high-performance tokamak plasmas. Several

promising techniques for mitigating the pulsed heat loads

from ELMs have been developed from U.S.-led efforts. That

knowledge is critical as the U.S. has prime responsibility for

implementing such mitigation methods on ITER. Because of

this responsibility, the U.S. program should emphasize the

Transients Initiative to actively modify the edge plasma con-

ditions to mitigate large ELMs using a variety of techniques,

including applied 3D magnetic-field per turbations and

timed injection of pellets into the edge plasma. It should

further explore plasma regimes that are suitable for burning

plasma scenarios in which deleterious ELMs do not arise.

To negate the consequences of disruptions in large

tokamak plasmas beyond simple avoidance of unstable

operating conditions, U.S. researchers will employ a multi-

level strategy informed by ongoing experiments and

improved theoretical understanding. Actuators and associ-

ated diagnostic tools employing state-of-the art control the-

ory will maintain passive stability by steering plasmas away

from disruptive states, actively stabilize disruptive precur-

sors when they arise, and pre-emptively shut down the

plasma as a last resort to avoid the worst consequences of

disruptions.

Continued development of the stellarator, in which toka-

mak-like disruptions do not occur, will also be pursued. The

U.S. should maintain its collaborations with the large foreign

stellarators as its primary means of engaging in stellarator-

centered fusion science, and on W7-X in particular, where a

collaborative agreement already exists.

Experiments conducted on international facilities that

have the requisite diagnostic capability will provide the nec-

essary data for model validation. Collaborations with inter-

national theorists through individual exchanges and through

formal projects (such as verification exercises coordinated

by the International Tokamak Physics Activity) will spur

development of key computer simulation modules. Ulti-

mately, a mature predictive model can provide advance

information needed to safely plan experiments on large

international devices.

Transients Initiative research plan

The U.S. program will conduct research on domestic facili-

ties to fur ther improve the prediction and avoidance of

major disruptions in tokamaks, and to reduce the potential

for divertor and first-wall damage to tolerable levels through

robust mitigation. Similar research will be maintained to

improve the suppression of ELMs.

Initially, the experimental research should be carried

out using the short-pulse, well diagnosed DIII-D and NSTX-

U devices. Because of the rapid growth rates of transient

events, they can best be investigated on existing facilities.

The Panel envisions much of the work to take place on DIII-

D, which already conducts active research in both disrup-

tions and ELMs and is well suited for this work. An upgrade

of the hardware for the 3D magnetic-field perturbation coils

is recommended.

The research could be transitioned to the longer pulse

EAST in China and KSTAR in South Korea, which are devic-

es that have fully stationary current and pressure profiles,

but this should be staged late in the 10-year period.

Research teams from EAST and KSTAR should be included

in collaborative research activity to facilitate this subse-

quent transition. The most impor tant transition for this

research will be operating ITER Baseline and subsequently

Advanced Tokamak discharges in ITER with minimal tran-

sient events, but this will occur beyond the 10-year horizon

of this plan.

Recommendation: Maintain the strong experimental U.S. fo-

cus on eliminating and/or mitigating destructive transient

events to enable the high-performance operation of ITER.

Develop improved predictive modeling of plasma behavior

during controlled transient events to explore the basis for

the disruption-free sustained tokamak scenario for FNSF

and DEMO.

Taming the plasma-material interface

The primary goal of the Interface Initiative is to develop the

physics understanding and engineering solutions for the

boundary plasma and plasma-facing components that will

enable the operation of a high-power fusion core with

acceptable material lifetimes.

12


Interface Initiative research plan

• Develop first-principles understanding and predictive

capability for the structure of the edge pedestal, in par-

ticular the pedestal height.

• Understand the physics of the heat flux width in the

scrape-off-layer structure, including a predictive capa-

bility for the heat flux incident on divertor materials and

other in-vessel components such as RF antennas.

• Explore solutions to mitigate heat f lux such as

advanced divertor solutions.

• Evaluate impact of PMI on boundary and core

performance.

This Initiative will engage improved theoretical modeling

with experiments conducted on toroidal confinement facili-

ties with a research focus on the boundary, scrape-off layer,

and divertor (both tokamak and stellarator experiments are

expected to contribute). The Panel advocates that one

major U.S. facility be made available as part of this Initiative

for innovative boundary studies with advanced divertor sce-

narios as an upgrade during the latter half of the 10-year

period. This effort will use the fundamental studies of plas-

ma-materials interaction in the Long Pulse subprogram and

will transition to steady-state boundary research on long-

pulse international superconducting tokamaks,.

Recommendation: Undertake a technical assessment to as-

certain which existing facility could most effectively address

the key boundary physics issues.

Experimentally Validated Integrated Predictive Capabilities

In general, fusion science benefits from experimentally vali-

dated modeling. Predicting behavior in future plasma

experiments and devices, specifically, requires this

approach to modeling. Crucial areas of fusion science

require coupling of topical subprogram elements to under-

stand and attain predictive capability that integrates numer-

ous effects at multiple temporal and spatial scales with the

whole plasma domain. Examples include active control and

mitigation of disruption events, core-edge coupling, plas-

ma-surface interaction, and 3D-field effects on edge and

pedestal properties. The strong coupling of physics implies

that new phenomena can appear that cannot generally be

predicted with theory tools that rely on single-phenomenon

models. The envisioned integrated predictive modeling sub-

program element will produce a transformational change in

the overall understanding of fusion plasma science that is

critical to achieve true predictive capability.

Predictive Initiative research plan

The new Initiative in integrated predictive capability should

start with the binary integration of single-topic elements in

which both of the individual elements are well developed

and integration is required to expand predictive capability to

address research priorities. The Panel envisions projects by

teams that include analytical theorists, computational plasma

physicists, computer scientists, applied mathematicians, and

experimentalists. In order to proceed to integrated, predictive

understanding, continued development in the existing topical

areas is required. The success of this integration activity is

contingent upon the validation of the individual-element

components. The need for continued development is particu-

larly important to topical areas with lower maturity level. Addi-

tionally, theory and simulation efforts should be expanded

and coordinated with experimental work in support of the

previously articulated Transients and Interface Initiatives.

As coupling of computational elements leads to new

technical issues not present in single-element enterprises,

the plasma theory and simulation program should seek

assistance from the broader computational science and

applied mathematics communities. High quality simulation

capabilities require researchers who have experience inter-

acting between the areas of experimental operation, theo-

retical modeling, numerical discretization, software

engineering, and computing hardware.

A robust analytic theory subprogram element is essential

to the success of the computational science effort. Analytic

theory has played a decisive role in the development of

fusion plasma physics by providing rigorous foundations for

plasma modeling, elucidating fundamental processes in

plasmas, and providing frameworks for interpreting results

from both experimental results and simulation results.

Increased analytic understanding is needed to achieve inte-

grated predictive capability in comprehensive modeling.

13


With a long-term vision of the complete integration of

all topical areas, the Panel recommends that community-

wide planning be initiated for the eventual integration of

program elements. Additionally, there is a need to identify

areas where substantial advances can be made with

increased computational power. The introduction of exas-

cale computing enables well-resolved simulations for single-

topic computational tools and allows for the possibility of

integrated predictive understanding through code coupling.

The Predictive Initiative must be closely connected to a

spectrum of plasma experimental facilities supported by

a vigorous diagnostics subprogram in order to provide cru-

cial tests of theory and provide a platform for validation.

Recommendation: Maintain and strengthen existing base

theory and SCIDAC subprograms to maintain world leader-

ship and leverage activities with the broader applied math-

ematics and computer science communities.

Recommendation: Ensure excellence in the experimentally

validated integrated Predictive Initiative with a peer-

reviewed, competitive proposal process to define the scope

and implementation strategy for realizing a whole-device

predictive model.

Contributions to FNS Initiative and Vision 2025

While not specified as high priorities within the three Initiatives

described above, a number of the other Thrusts are important

in their contribution to U.S. engagement in ITER, the definition

of a science facility for the emerging fusion nuclear science

program, and to the Thrusts that motivate the selected Initia-

tives. The development of new plasma diagnostics is cross

cutting and crucial to all of the Initiatives. Successful comple-

tion of the Predictive Initiative, will require new diagnostics

that target key validation efforts. For Long Pulse, new diag-

nostics that can function in the harsh reactor environment will

be needed in ITER and beyond. For DPS, innovative diagnos-

tics techniques can unlock new areas of discovery.

The success of ITER is best ensured by the strategic

progress outlined in the 10-year plan. Specifically, the

Predictive Initiative will benefit from linking work on operat-

ing scenarios and the observations associated with control

techniques. Fusion-product effects (Thrust 3) and the self-

consistent interplay between alpha-particle heating and the

thermal plasma (Thrust 8) are major, novel elements empha-

sized in ITER’s immediate and long-term research pro-

grams. Understanding these effects is necessary for a

successful FNSF. Within this strategic plan, ongoing

research in the FNS Initative is an important contributor to

the Predictive Initiative. Using its domestic facilities, the U.S.

has the opportunity to develop operating scenarios for ITER

(Thrust 4). These activities prepare U.S. researchers for

active participation in ITER’s baseline operation.

Advancing the tokamak concept to true steady-state

capability motivates the development of effective strategies

and actuators for controlling the plasma, specifically its cur-

rent and its stable radial current profile for as long as

required, on short time scales on which discharge-terminat-

ing instabilities must be suppressed and on longer time

scales for maintaining the plasma equilibrium. (Thrust 5).

Achieving the former is captured to some extent in the Tran-

sients Initiative. The latter aspect emphasizes achieving

adequate control and sustainment of the steady-state plas-

ma equilibrium, which is a prerequisite for tokamak scenar-

ios of FNSF and will also be explored in extended-pulse

experiments on ITER.

The FNS Initiative to pursue the FNSF as an aspect of a

broader fusion nuclear science subprogram is described in

the next chapter. Much of the long pulse plasma control

research for FNSF and ITER, however, should be initially

performed in the Foundations category on existing U.S.

facilities where the appropriate pioneering research is

already taking place. Both DIII-D and NSTX-U have pro-

grammatic plans to advance the scientific basis of sus-

tained plasma control of the AT and ST, respectively. In the

case of the AT, the maturing knowledge and capability will

be transitioned to the Asian long pulse devices (EAST,

KSTAR, and ultimately JT-60SA). A DOE-funded internation-

al collaboration on plasma control on EAST and KSTAR has

recently been initiated, and should be expanded later in the

10-year plan to exploit other benefits of long-pulse facilities,

e.g., assessing asymptotic PMI in stationary, long pulse dis-

charges. The outcome of control and sustainment work on

the ST is discussed below. In both cases, the work is

14


intended to enable a decision on the preferred configura-

tion of FNSF that is expected to run continuously for weeks.

The Spherical Torus program has a special role in the

U.S. program. The ST is envisioned to be a potential lower-

cost experimental platform for carrying out a fusion nucle-

ar science subprogram beyond the 10-year scope of the

Panel Report. NSTX-U, when complete, will be one of two

major STs in the world that can develop the scientific basis

for the ST as a configuration for FNSF. A goal of the U.S.

plan is to provide an informed decision within ten years on

whether the preferred magnetic geometry of the FNSF

should be AT, ST, or stellarator. To this end, NSTX-U should

primarily focus on resolving the technical issues underpin-

ning the FNSF-ST design. The key issues more or less

specific to the ST have been identified to be non-solenoidal

startup, sustainment of the plasma current, and scaling of

confinement with collisionality. Additionally, LTX and Pega-

sus, as the suppor ting STs, play impor tant suppor ting

research in the areas of PMI and current initiation studies,

respectively.

Recommendation: Focus research efforts on studies crucial

to deciding the viability of the ST for FNSF.

Foundations, 2025 and beyond

ITER is expected to be in operation at the end of the

10-year timeframe of this report and will be the beneficiary

of all of the Initiatives described in this section. Substantial

advances in the theory and practice of the control of ELMs

and disruptions will allow ITER to proceed with its multiple

missions with reasonable confidence that transient events

are technically manageable. Increased fundamental under-

standing of boundary physics will allow accurate prediction

of average heat loads to the divertor and pedestal height.

Experimentally validated theory will be prepared to model ini-

tial ITER discharge behavior to provide essential predictive

capability for future alpha-heated burning ITER plasmas that

lie at the heart of that facility’s goals. Looking beyond

2025, the advanced control and sustainment techniques

developed on DIII-D and extended to tests on the Asian

superconducting tokamaks directly contribute to the ITER

mission’s long-pulse discharges.

These Initiatives will also make important contributions

to next-step experiments and will provide strategies for

DEMO as the world moves into the burning plasma era.

Developing solutions for the plasma-materials interface are

essential for any approach to fusion energy development.

Successful control of disruptions is required if FNSF is

based on a tokamak core. Finally, while the step to ITER has

relied largely on empirically derived knowledge, experimen-

tally validated integrated predictive modeling will provide a

firm basis for FES’s ambitious next step in the pursuit of

practical fusion energy.

Chapter 3

Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse

17


Long Pulse: Definition and status

Fusion power plants based on magnetically confined plasmas

are envisioned to essentially run continuously under stationary

conditions of plasma density and temperature, and fusion

power production, i.e., steady-state, with only short shutdown

intervals for maintenance. While significant fusion output from

tokamak plasmas has been achieved for periods of up to sev-

eral seconds, no current experimental device can operate

continuously at high plasma-confinement performance.

The plasma performance achievable in current or

recent tokamak and stellarator experiments, characterized

by the fusion figure-of-merit nτET incorporating the plasma

density n, plasma temperature T, and overall energy con-

tainment time τE, generally decreases as the duration of the

plasma increases, (c.f., Fig. 4.1 in FESAC’s 2012 report on

Opportunities in International Collaboration). The category

of Long Pulse research encompasses the extension of

high-performance plasmas to discharge durations that pro-

gressively satisfy the goals of extended-pulse discharges in

ITER and the expectation of what is required of FNSF. The

findings, achieved in concert with corresponding theoreti-

cal understanding, project to DEMO and ultimately steady-

state fusion power plants.

Superconducting magnets, radio-frequency waves, and

neutral beams must be capable of confining and heating

the plasma for long durations. The power provided by the

heating systems, and fusion-generated alpha particles in

burning plasmas, are removed from the plasma at its

boundary, leading to intense interaction with the plasma-

facing materials in the divertor and wall that must be better

understood. As tokamak plasmas require plasma current

for confinement, the current must be sustained at a predict-

able magnitude and controlled against instability for extend-

ed durations. In all burning plasma devices, however, the

most pressing overarching issue is the performance of the

plasma-facing materials over time. The durations defined by

the term “long pulse” in this chapter are set by the time

scales of equilibration of the wall material with respect to

impurity evolution and recycling of the incident plasma,

thermal equilibration of the plasma-facing components, and

material erosion and migration. Additional Long Pulse

issues involve exploratory research on the materials, fuel

regeneration, and power conversion concepts that would

be later pursued in and integrated manner in an (FNSF).

The facility is viewed as the final precursor of a demonstra-

tion fusion power plant (DEMO).

The Burning Plasma Science Long Pulse subprogram

consists of five general research elements. In a coordinated

activity with the Foundations subprogram, plasma physics

research will open and explore the new and unique scien-

tific regimes that emerge during extended plasma confine-

ment (including regimes achieved in stellarators and

long-duration superconducting international tokamaks). In a

second element also coordinated with the Foundations sub-

program, a variety of plasma technology research activities

on heating, fueling, and transient mitigation that enable

advanced plasma physics operations are being explored.

Plasma technology activities related to short-pulse opera-

tions are located in the Foundations subprogram, whereas

plasma technology research focusing on long pulse opera-

tions, including divertor solutions for extended operations,

are organized within the Long Pulse subprogram.

A third element is devoted to materials research to

understand and ultimately design high-performance materi-

als that can withstand the harsh conditions associated with

a burning plasma environment. Blanket engineering sci-

ence, the fourth element, is focused on research approach-

es to replenish the tritium fuel and extract the fusion heat

from next-step fusion burning plasma devices. The fifth ele-

ment is dedicated to exploratory design studies of attrac-

tive steady-state fusion power concepts.

This subprogram currently consists of the following

elements:

• The research and operations of both major U.S. machines,

the DIII-D National Fusion Facility located at General Atom-

ics and the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade

(NSTX-U) at PPPL,

• Long-pulse plasma physics research using stellarators

and international superconducting tokamaks,

• Activities in the theory and simulation and the Scientific

Discovery Through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) sub-

programs related to long-pulse plasma operations, plasma

material interactions, and fusion nuclear science issues,

18


• Plasma-material interaction (PMI) and high heat flux

(HHF) research for plasma-facing components during

long pulse operation,

• Materials science research to understand and mitigate

proper ty degradation phenomena associated with

intense D-T fusion neutron-irradiation and to design

new high-performance materials to enable practical

fusion energy,

• Blanket engineering and science to devise solutions for

creating and reprocessing the tritium fuel and efficiently

utilizing the deposited heat for electricity production, and

• Development of integrated designs and models for

attractive fusion power concepts.

At present, the U.S. does not have a long-pulse facility on

which long-pulse research can be carried out, although the

domestic program has well-diagnosed short-pulse toka-

maks that address crucial plasma physics issues for the

Long Pulse subprogram. Unlike the tokamak, the stellarator

operates instrinsically in steady state and, to date, has

proven to be disruption-free. The U.S. remains active in stel-

larator research through a small but vibrant theory and sim-

ulation subprogram, small university-scale domestic

experimental facilities, collaborations with Japan’s Large

Helical Device (LHD), and a growing partnership with Ger-

many’s new Wendelstein 7-X project.

The U.S. operates a number of single effect and few

effects plasma simulators and test stands to study plasma-

surface interactions (PSI) for candidate plasma-facing

materials.

The major plasma simulators (PISCES, TPE) address

basic PMI science topics such as sputtering, surface mor-

phology modifications (fuzz, blisters, etc.), retention of fuel

(including tritium) in various materials (including neutron-irra-

diated tungsten), the synergistic effects of mixed materials,

and the effect of simulated ELMs. The intense plasma source

for an advanced linear multi-effects plasma simulator that

would simulate conditions in the divertor of an FNSF-class

facility is under development. High-heat-flux test stands are

currently being used to study the effects on materials prop-

erties in neutron-irradiated materials samples and to study,

on a small scale, various helium jet-impingement cooling

concepts proposed for PFCs. The U.S., in its theory and

simulation subprogram, maintains a comprehensive model-

ing and validation effort in the areas of boundary physics;

material erosion, migration of and redeposition; and plasma

instability-induced materials damage.

Structural materials, blanket development, and tritium

handling are key elements of the FNS Initiative. The U.S. is a

leader in the area of reduced-activation structural materials ,

with the leading international reduced-activation structural

material candidates all derived from U.S. concepts. Broad

materials science expertise and advanced neutron irradiation

and characterization facilities are currently available due to

leveraging of other DOE programs, and a near-term high-

intensity irradiation facility that provides fusion-relevant neu-

tron irradiation spectra based on existing spallation (high

energy accelerator) concepts is under development. The U.S.

also has significant capabilities in fusion blanket development

(modeling and experiments); surface heat flux handling; triti-

um processing, permeation and control; safety/accident event

analysis; and power plant design and modeling.

Thrusts

Of the eighteen MFE-ReNeW Thrusts, ten are relevant to the

Long Pulse theme. A listing of those Thrusts—4, 5, 7, 10,

11, 12, 13,14,15, and 17—can be found in Chapter 2.

There are eight Thrusts unique to Long Pulse, along

with the two Thrusts led by Foundations that involve some

Long Pulse aspects. In addition, Thrust 9, allocated to Foun-

dations, is so closely related to Thrusts 10-12 that they were

considered together in the ReNEW report under the MFE-

ReNeW theme, “Taming the plasma-material interface.”

Within the Foundations and Long Pulse subprograms,

the Interface Inititative emerged as a Tier 1 Initiative. It

should be noted that Thrust 9 deals with the interaction

between core plasma, scrape-off layer, and wall. Thrust 12

includes a focus on PMI-core integration, while Thrusts 10

and 11 address high plasma erosion, heat-flux challenges,

and potential innovative design solutions. Within the Inter-

face Initiative, the focus of the Long Pulse subprogram is

on Thrusts 10 and 11.

19


Similarly, the MFE-ReNeW report collectively consid-

ered Thrusts 13-15 under the MFE-ReNeW theme, “har-

nessing fusion power.” These areas together comprise the

Tier 2 FNS Initiative recommended by the Panel. The Panel

report emphasizes Thrusts 13 and 14 in the first phase,

while Thrust 15 becomes more important in the second

phase (nominally the last five years) of the FNS Initiative.

Priorities

The Long Pulse subpanel determined that Thrust 10 was

the highest priority activity because of the urgency of

addressing the threats posed by the combined high heat

and particle fluxes on PFCs, relevance to ITER, and the

opportunity for U.S. leadership. Thrust 14 was considered

to be the next highest priority because multiple materials

issues were viewed as crucial to the advancement of fusion

nuclear science, the strong opportunity for U.S. leadership,

and opportunities for leveraging with other Federal Pro-

grams as noted in Chapter 5 and Appendix G. Finally,

Thrusts 5 and 17 were considered to be important to Long

Pulse because of their relevance to fusion nuclear science,

the maintenance of U.S. leadership, its utilization of U.S.

strengths and the potential to address unique interface

issues (Thrust 10) associated with three-dimensional con-

figurations. The research of Thrust 17 and the advanced

tokamak development of Thrust 5 together constitute an

important aspect of long pulse research: how to create a

high performance plasma that has the sufficiently long

duration that is needed for future fusion-relevant facilities

and, ultimately, for power plants.

To help in ranking these Thrusts, the Long Pulse sub-

panel identified a number of basic science questions to be

addressed within each Thrust. Those identified for Decod-

ing and advancing the science and technology of PSI

[Thrust 10] were:

• How does neutron irradiation influence erosion yields,

dust production and tritium retention in PFCs?

• How do PFCs evolve under fusion prototypic fluxes, flu-

ences and temperatures?

• What determines the lifetime of a PFC? For example, is

net erosion yield due to physical sputtering, macro-

scopic erosion leading to dust (e.g. delamination of

surface films, unipolar arcing of nano-structures, burst-

ing blisters, whole grain ejection) or melt layer loss?

• Is there a viable option for a robust helium-cooled tung-

sten PFC capable of withstanding steady-state and

transient high heat fluxes?

• Are PMI solutions for low net divertor erosion during

long pulse plasma exposure compatible with an opti-

mized core plasma? How do the resulting thick rede-

posited surface layers evolve and what are their thermal

and mechanical properties?

The basic science questions for developing the materials

science and technology needed to harness fusion energy

[Thrust 14] were:

• Is there a viable structural material option that might

survive the DT fusion irradiation environment for at least

5 MW-yr/m2 (50 displacements per atom)?

• What are the roles of fusion-relevant transmutant H and

He on modifying the microstructural evolution of irradi-

ated materials?

• What is an appropriate science-based structural design

criterion for irradiated structural materials at elevated

temperatures?

• The science questions for optimizing steady-state, dis-

ruption-free toroidal confinement [Thrust 17] were:

• What tokamak heating and control solutions are most

ef fective in realizing stable long pulse tokamak

discharges?

• What stellarator divertor solutions are capable of high

power handling and power control in long-pulse opera-

tional scenarios?

• Can PMI solutions be integrated with high performance,

steady-state core stellarator and advanced tokamak

plasmas?

The generation of long pulse toroidal plasmas that serve as

the target of this work will take place in tokamaks and stel-

larators. The U.S. program places a priority on developing

the scientific basis for extending the pulsed tokamak to

20


operate continuously, or at least for the duration required for

FNS-relevant PMI studies. This research engages control

theory and modeling coupled with the implementation of

plasma actuators in the form of radio frequency current

drive and tangentially-oriented neutral beams to maintain

and control the plasma current profile necessary for stable

confinement of a tokamak plasma. U.S. researchers are

leaders in this novel approach and should continue to make

progress for several years on the well-diagnosed DIII-D and

NSTX-U facilities.

Initiatives

The research priorities identified above motivate a multi-

faceted initiative in fusion nuclear science (FNS Initiative).

Of the four highest-priority Initiatives identified by the Panel,

the Interface Initiative introduced in the previous chapter

and the FNS Initiatives are the most relevant to Long Pulse,

in addition to the cross-cutting Predictive Initiative.

As highlighted in prior community evaluations, includ-

ing the MFE-ReNeW assessment of 2009 and the 2007 and

2012 FESAC panel reports (ref. Greenwald, Zinkle), the

most daunting challenge to establishing the technological

feasibility of magnetic fusion energy is finding a solution for

the plasma-materials interaction (PMI) challenges. These

challenges for long-pulse burning-plasma operation include

• potentially unacceptable material erosion and redepo-

sition from intense particle fluxes,

• undesirable tritium entrainment in redeposited layers, and

• high heat-flux melting of plasma facing armor and asso-

ciated thermal fatigue damage to underlying structures.

All of these challenges could lead to unacceptable failures

and require frequent replacement of PFCs. In all cases, the

solution to the PMI challenges needs to be compatible with

an optimized core plasma. Several potential approaches for

mitigating some of these PMI effects have been proposed

(e.g., plasma-based configuration changes, material modifi-

cations), but they all need to be vigorously explored and

eventually validated on appropriate PMI facilities.

Over the next ten years, studying plasma control will

be an important research activity in both U.S. and interna-

tional facilities. State-of-the-art plasma control techniques

with various current and profile actuators, required for

long-pulse advanced tokamak plasmas, are being pio-

neered on the DIII-D tokamak and also will be carried out

on the upgraded NSTX-U. The continuation of these stud-

ies is an essential component of this Initiative. Because

the U.S. has no long-pulse facility on which true steady-

state research can be carried out, the Panel expects that

after about five years these efforts will increasingly transi-

tion from the domestic facilities with plasma durations of

several seconds, to superconducting long-pulse tokamaks

in China, South Korea, and Japan with plasma pulse

lengths of 100 seconds or more, depending on the techni-

cal readiness of those facilities to accommodate such

studies. Collaborations in control and sustainment are

already underway with EAST and KSTAR. Those collabora-

tions should ultimately expand to ones based on solving

long-pulse PMI issues.

The overarching limitation in any magnetic confine-

ment configuration is the intolerably high power loading/

PMI at the first wall and divertor. ITER-level power fluences

in reactor-relevant divertors have been studied in the Alca-

tor C-Mod tokamak. Several other toroidal PMI devices

have been proposed, as documented in the community

input to the FESAC SP panel (Appendices E and F). At a

much smaller scale, preparatory work on three-dimension-

al edge transpor t will be performed on U.S. university

short-pulse stellarators in support of evaluating boundary

transport models in preparation for collaborative work on

the large international stellarators. The partnership with

the German W7-X project allows the U.S. to play an impor-

tant role, with leadership potential in some areas, in high-

performance stellarator research with an emphasis on

divertor power handling and control of power exhaust in

novel divertor configurations.

The Panel concluded that the most cost-effective path

to finding a self-consistent solution to the daunting PMI

challenge was to construct an advanced multi-effects lin-

ear divertor simulator that can test PFC materials at proto-

typical powers and fluences. One of the new classes of

21


advanced linear PSI facilities called for in Thrust 10, a lin-

ear divertor simulator, is defined here to be a facility that

operates at the very high fluence conditions expected at

the divertor target in DEMO (or FNSF). This facility would

explore PMI for long-duration pulses (up to one million

seconds) in the low net erosion regime and perform

accelerated end-of-life testing of candidate PFCs. The

facility will operate at thermal plasma parameters (ion

flux, temperature, and density) that will allow investigation

of prompt redeposition of sputtered atoms to dramatically

reduce net erosion rates. It should also test neutron-irra-

diated materials to explore synergistic ef fects due to

material thermo-physical properties changes and trap-

ping of fuel on damage sites. Results from this facility,

along with those from numerical simulations, will inform

PFC development for and operations on long-pulse

tokamaks.

The FNS Initiative will establish a fusion nuclear sci-

ences subprogram, which is required to address key sci-

entific and technological issues for harnessing fusion

power (materials behavior, tritium science, chamber tech-

nology, and power extraction). Determining how the mate-

rials in contact with the fusion plasma and the underlying

structure are affected by extreme heat and particle fluxes

while simultaneously suffering neutron radiation damage,

and developing practical approaches to managing the tri-

tium fuel cycle are both required for practical fusion ener-

gy. The unique changes to materials and components due

to exposure to the fusion reactor environment (ranging

from PFCs to structural materials to breeding blankets

and tritium extraction systems) need to be understood in

order to provide the scientific basis for fusion energy.

The ultimate goal of the FNS Initiative is to provide the

scientific basis to design and operate an integrated FNSF.

When completed, it would be a research facility that

incorporates most of the technical components within the

core of a future DEMO power plant, but is built at mini-

mum fusion power in order to enable fusion component

testing and optimization at minimum tritium consumption

and overall cost [Goldston, FESAC, 2003]. There are sev-

eral crucial near-term decisions that will shape the FNSF

design. The plasma configuration (AT, vs. ST tokamak, vs.

stellarator) and operational regimes need to be estab-

lished on the basis of focused domestic and international

collaborative long-pulse, high-power research. Materials

science research needs to be expanded to comprehend

intense fusion neutron irradiation effects on property deg-

radation of structural materials and to design potential

materials science approaches to mitigate these degrada-

tion phenomena. The Panel concluded that building a new

fusion materials neutron-irradiation facility that leverages

an existing MW-level neutron spallation source would be a

highly cost-effective option for this purpose.

Fundamental research is also needed to develop a

practical tritium fuel and power conversion blanket sys-

tem, including improved understanding of tritium perme-

ation and trapping in candidate coolants and fusion

materials, exploration of viable methods for efficiently

extracting tritium from hot flowing media, and improved

understanding of complex magnetohydrodynamic effects

on the flow of electrically conductive coolants in confined

channels. Diagnostics appropriate for FNSF conditions

will also need to be developed by leveraging the experi-

ence and diagnostics development that comes from ITER.

Axisymmetric (tokamak and ST) configurations are the

best understood options for a next-step facility. The non-

axisymmetric optimized stellarator is less well developed

in absolute level of plasma-confinement performance but

avoids some of the tokamak’s challenges in that stellara-

tors are inherently steady-state, operate at relatively high

plasma density, provide greater design flexibility in their

magnetic configuration, and do not suffer from disrup-

tions or large ELMs. Depending on progress resolving

crucial long pulse science issues with regard to ATs and

STs, the U.S. should consider expanding the stellarator

subprogram in Phase 2 by constructing an experiment

with sufficient performance to establish the confinement

of an optimized stellarator based on quasi-symmetry prin-

ciples. This activity could eventually lead to a steady-state

nuclear facility based upon the stellarator, if needed.

22


Long Pulse, 2025 and beyond

The subprogram elements of the Long Pulse highest-priority

research are guided by a 2025 Vision that will enable suc-

cessful operation of ITER with U.S. participation; provide the

scientific basis for a U.S. Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

(FNSF); and create a U.S. “Generation ITER-FNSF” work-

force that can lead scientific discoveries and technological

innovation. The Interface Initiative contributes to the suc-

cessful operation of ITER; the Interface and FNS Initiatives

will together establish the scientific basis of FNSF. Finally,

the research suppor ted by these Initiatives will train a

significant por tion of the Generation ITER-FNSF fusion

workforce.

Ten years after Vision 2025 is initiated, the specific

deliverables of the Long Pulse subprogram are:

• The Interface and FNS Initiatives have identified scien-

tifically robust solutions for long pulse DT burning

plasma machines.

• The advanced linear divertor simulator is operating at

full capability and is a world-leading user facility pro-

viding scientific insight on PMI mechanisms and

potential solutions.

• The preliminary science basis for viable structural

materials for FNSF and DEMO has been established

using a fusion materials neutron-irradiation test stand.

• The basic plasma configuration and geometry of

FNSF has been decided, and design is underway

based on new scientific knowledge of highly stable

long pulse plasma configurations, high performance

materials systems, innovative fusion blanket systems,

and proven tritium extraction techniques.

• Optimized stellarator plasmas suitable for long-pulse

operation, with the capability to handle appropriate

wall and divertor loads, have been demonstrated in

integrated tests.

• The scientific principles of long-pulse advanced toka-

mak operation are established.

In ten years, the Panel envisions that ITER will have

achieved first plasma. Although this subprogram focuses

upon confinement configurations with pulse durations of at

least one million seconds, ITER first plasma effectively

marks the beginning of the magnetic fusion energy era.

With the Interface and Fusion Nuclear Science Initiatives,

the U.S. will be ready to lead in the following areas of

fusion nuclear sciences:

• plasma boundary and plasma-material interactions

• advanced high-heat-flux plasma-facing components

innovative blanket concepts including reduced-activation

structural materials

• optimized three-dimensional plasma geometries.

By investing in these areas, the U.S. will be ready to design

and build a world-leading fusion nuclear sciences facility

that will be the bridge required to go from ITER to a reactor

that will demonstrate practical magnetic fusion energy.

Supporting Recommendations

The specific recommendations for Long Pulse are:

Design and build the advanced multi-effects linear divertor

simulator described above to support the Interface Initiative.

Design and build a new fusion materials neutron-irradiation

facility that leverages an existing MW-level neutron spallation

source to support the Fusion Nuclear Sciences Initiative.

Invest in a research subprogram element and associated

facilities on blanket technologies and tritium sustainability

that will advance studies from single to multiple effects and

interactions.

Chapter 4


25


Discovery Plasma Science: Definition and Status

The purpose of Discovery Plasma Science (DPS), as

described by the Fusion Energy Science program, is to

“increase the fundamental understanding of basic plasma

science, including both burning plasma and low tempera-

ture plasma science and engineering, to enhance econom-

ic competiveness and to create opportunities for a broader

range of science-based applications.”

The DPS description in the April 2014 Charge Letter to

FESAC is “the study of laboratory plasmas and the HED

state relevant to astrophysical phenomena, the develop-

ment of advanced measurement for validation, the science

of plasma control important to industrial applications.”

The NRC Plasma 2010 Plasma Science Committee

report [Ref. 1, Appendix H] provided descriptions of plas-

ma science and engineering research, opportunities, and

applications for the following plasma science fields: Low-

Temperature Plasma Science and Engineering, Plasma

Physics at High Energy Density, The Plasma Science of

Magnetic Fusion, Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, and

Basic Plasma Science.

With the aid of all three descriptions above, the definition

the Panel used to guide subsequent DPS discussions is:

• Discovery Plasma Science stewards plasma innovation

and applications by expanding the understanding of

plasma behavior in concert with training the next gen-

eration of plasma scientists to help ensure the continu-

ation of U.S. leadership.

In FY14, the DPS subprogram had a total funding of $45.7M

that supported about 90 university grants and 45 DOE

national laboratory projects. The FY14 DPS subprogram

elements had the following funding levels:

• General Plasma Science $15.0M

• HED Laboratory Plasmas $17.3M

• Experimental Plasma Research (EPR) $4.2M

• Madison Symmetric Torus $5.7M

• Diagnostic Measurement Innovation $3.5M

Recently, EPR and Madison Symmetric Torus subprogram ele-

ments were combined under the description Self-Organized

Systems (SO-Systems). A brief summary of the research

being explored within the individual DPS subprogram

elements is:

General Plasma Science (GPS) covers a broad set of top-

ics in plasma science, including research into fundamental

plasma properties driven primarily through discovery-based

investigations. In addition to FES funding, GPS is also sup-

ported through the NSF-DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma

Science and Engineering [Ref. 2, Appendix H]. The breadth

of GPS research topics can be represented in par t by

workshops involving the plasma research community that

explored opportunities in low temperature plasma science

[Ref. 3, Appendix H] and plasma astrophysics [Ref. 4,

Appendix H]. The GPS portfolio includes research teams

that are best described as Single Investigator, Centers/Col-

laborations, and User Facilities. As a representative exam-

ple of GPS plasma research, the list of publications

associated with the Basic Plasma Science Facility at UCLA

[Ref. 5, Appendix H], and the list of research highlights

associated with the Center for Predictive Control of Plasma

Kinetics: Multi-phase and Bounded Systems at the Univer-

sity of Michigan [Ref. 6, Appendix H] are referenced.

High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) refers

to the study of plasmas at extremely high density and tem-

perature corresponding to pressures near one million

atmospheres. The FES HEDLP research is focused on

HED science topics without any implied specific applica-

tions. As a HEDLP partnership between BES and FES, the

Matter at Extreme Conditions (MEC) end station of the

Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) user facility at SLAC

provides scientific users with access to HED regimes

uniquely coupled with a high-brightness x-ray source [Ref.

7, Appendix H]. HEDLP research is also carried out within

the NSF-DOE Partnership and the NNSA SC HEDLP Joint

Program. As a representative example of HEDLP research,

the list of publications associated with the LCLS MEC is

referenced [Ref. 8, Appendix H].

26


Self-Organized Systems Activities Include plasma physics

and technology activities germane to the understanding of

magnetic confinement and to improving the basis for future

burning plasma experiments (see the 2008 FESAC Toroidal

Alternates Panel, Ref. 9, Appendix H). SO-Systems has a

great deal of overlap with GPS research given that GPS

research is performed on many of the SO-Systems experi-

ments with direct and indirect application both to non-fusion

GPS plasmas, as well as fusion relevant plasma topics such

as magnetic configurations, stability, electrostatic and mag-

netic turbulence and transport, current drive, and many oth-

ers. The Madison Symmetric Torus experimental facility at

the University of Wisconsin supports both Reversed Field

Pinch investigations and basic plasma physics research

[Ref. 10, Appendix H]. The facility engages a large number

of postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, and under-

graduate students in both fusion science and plasma phys-

ics research. The list of publications associated with the

Madison Symmetric Torus exemplifies the productivity of the

SO-Systems subprogram element [Ref. 11, Appendix H].

Diagnostic Measurement Innovation (DMI) supports valida-

tion-related diagnostic development that couples experi-

ments, theory, and simulation to improve models of plasma

behavior in fusion research devices, and to monitor plasma

properties and act upon feedback control signals in order

to improve device operations. Every two years, the High-

Temperature Plasma Diagnostic (HTPD) conference brings

together diagnosticians representing all three FES subpro-

grams who then publish findings in the journal Review of

Scientific Instruments [Ref. 12, Appendix H]. The European

Physical Society Conference on Plasma Diagnostics series

is modeled on the U.S. conference and takes place in years

alternate to HTPD.

Prioritization and Recommendations

Within the DPS program elements (GPS, HEDLP, Self-Orga-

nized Systems, and Diagnostic Innovation), there is a broad

spectrum of plasma regimes with a correspondingly wide

range of plasma parameters. References include previous

reports (e.g. FESAC) and workshops (e.g. ReNeW) relevant

to DPS, the NRC Plasma 2010 report, and the 2014 DPS

community presentations and white papers. The DPS sub-

panel provides a Primary Recommendation for all of DPS

and a Supporting Recommendation for each DPS subpro-

gram element.

A finding from the Plasma 2010 report is especially

germane to the prioritization process and worth noting here:

“The vitality of plasma science in the past decade testi-

fies to the success of some of the individual federally

supported plasma-science programs. However, the

emergence of new research directions necessitates a

concomitant evolution in the structure and portfolio of

programs at the federal agencies that support plasma

science. The committee has identified four significant

research challenges that federal plasma science port-

folio as currently organized is not equipped to exploit

optimally. These are fundamental low-temperature plas-

ma science, discovery-driven high energy density plas-

ma science, intermediate-scale plasma science, and

cross-cutting plasma research.”

The DPS subpanel sorted the DPS white papers into their

respective DPS program elements and evaluated the contri-

butions using the following set of prioritization metrics:

Prioritization

Advancing Plasma Science Frontiers

Whether the DPS research priority proposed would advance

the frontiers of plasma innovation and plasma applications.

Strengthening Collaborations

Whether the DPS proposed investment could lead to col-

laborations between universities, national laboratories and

industry, and across federal agencies.

Providing Cross Cutting Benefits

Whether the DPS investment would provide cross cutting

benefits to all FES programs especially in training the next

generation of plasma scientists.

27


Based on these prioritization metrics, the Panel arrived at

the DPS primary recommendation:

Primary Recommendation

FES stewardship of basic plasma research should be ac-

complished through strengthening of peer-reviewed univer-

sity, national laboratory, and industry collaborations. In or-

der to realize the broadest range of plasma science

discoveries, the research should be enhanced through

federal-agency partnerships that include cost sharing of

intermediate-scale, collaborative facilities

In addition to the Foundations and Long Pulse Tier I and

Tier II Initiatives, the following expands on “Advancing the

frontiers of DPS knowledge through highly leveraged, col-

laborative facilities” as the DPS Primary Recommendation:

• Effective DPS program elements can provide transfor-

mational and sometimes disruptive new ideas for plas-

ma topics. DPS research seeks to address a wide

range of fundamental science, including fusion, but the

topics selected are those outlined by the NRC Plasma

2010 report. DPS activities are synergistic with the

research mission of other federal agencies and signifi-

cant opportunities exist to broaden the impact of DPS

through the development and expansion of strategic

par tnerships between FES and other agencies.

Addressing fundamental science questions at the fron-

tier of plasma science requires a spectrum of labora-

tory experimental facilities from small-scale, single-PI

facilities to intermediate-scale, highly collaborative

facilities. The development of each intermediate-scale

and multi-investigator facility with world-leading capa-

bilities will address a range of cutting-edge scientific

questions with a comprehensive diagnostic suite. Mutu-

al interactions between larger facilities found at national

laboratories and small and intermediate facilities will

facilitate the advancement of DPS frontiers, conducted

on the smallest appropriate scale, and in training the

next generation of plasma scientists. The absence of

DPS-specific Initiatives is intentional in order to avoid

any potential misinterpretations of the paradigm that

was used to map the Foundations and Long Pulse Ini-

tiatives with the full set of 18 ReNeW MFE Thrusts. The

one outlier is Thrust 18, “Achieve high performance

toroidal confinement using minimal externally applied

magnetic field,” which represents a portion of projects

in the SO-Systems element of the DPS subprogram.

The Primary Recommendation above and the following Sup-

porting Recommendations are envisioned aggregately as

supporting the DPS definition. The DPS prioritization pro-

cess also included Supporting Recommendations.

Supporting Recommendations

General Plasma Science (GPS) Supporting Recommendation:

FES should take the lead in exploring multi-agency part-

nering for GPS activities. This effort should include funding

for intermediate-scale facilities (as discussed in the NRC

Plasma 2010 report) with funding for construction, opera-

tions, facility-staff research, and the corresponding user

research program.

The intermediate-scale facilities should be either: strongly

collaborative in nature, involving researchers from multiple

institutions working on experiment, theory and simulation, or

operate as open user facilities, offering research opportuni-

ties to researchers from a broad range of institutions. At the

same time, the investment strategy aimed at increasing the

number of intermediate-scale facilities should not lose sight

of noteworthy contributions coming from small-scale facili-

ties and plasma centers. The natural partnering opportuni-

ties for FES to explore are between the DOE Office of

Science (SC) and the National Nuclear Security Administra-

tion (NNSA), as well as other relevant federal agencies. Two

current partnership models are the National Science Foun-

dation-DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engi-

neering, and the NNSA-SC Joint Program in HED

Laboratory Plasmas. One resource to use for leverage is the

NSF Major Research Instrumentation Program for facility

construction funding [Ref. 13, Appendix H]. That source

was used to partially fund the construction of the BaPSF

[Ref. 14, Appendix H] and more recently for the advanced

reconnection facility FLARE [Ref. 15, Appendix H], the plasma

28


dynamo facility MPDX [Ref. 16, Appendix H], and the mag-

netized dusty plasma facility MDPX [Ref. 17, Appendix H].

High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) Support-

ing Recommendation

FES should avail itself of levering opportunities at both SC

and NNSA high-energy-density-physics user facilities, within

the context of the NNSA-SC Joint Program in HEDLP. This is

especially true for the FES HEDLP community researchers

who have been awarded experimental shot time, much as

FES avails itself of the levering opportunities within the high-

ly successful SciDAC partnership between ASCR and FES.

The Panel’s recommendation is consistent with the opportu-

nities outlined in both the HEDLP Basic Needs Workshop

repor t (November 2009, Ref. 18, Appendix H) and the

FESAC HEDLP Panel report (January 2009, Ref. 19, Appendix

H), and warrants appropriate funding for proposal-driven

competitive HEDLP research.

Self-Organized Systems Supporting Recommendation

FES should manage the elements of SO-Systems using

subprogram-wide metrics with peer reviews occurring ev-

ery three to five years to provide a suite of capabilities that

explore an intellectually broad set of scientific questions

related to self-organized systems.

The experimental flexibility and diagnostic sets on SO-Systems

experiments makes these facilities valuable for predictive-

model validation test beds. FES should take the lead for

exploring multi-agency partnering for SO-Systems activities.

Diagnost ic Measurement Innovat ions Suppor t ing

Recommendation

FES should manage diagnostic development and measure-

ment innovation in order to have a coordinated cross-cutting

set of predictive model validation activities across all DPS

subprogram elements: GPS, HEDLP, and SO-Systems.

Diagnostic development and measurement innovation should

be a shared, crosscutting program with easy transitions

between subprogram elements to allow rapid development,

sometimes starting on small to intermediate-scale devices

and, when appropriate, further development of the innova-

tive measurement techniques on BPS Foundations and

Long Pulse facilities.

DPS and Budget Scenarios

Because of the FES’s stewardship of DPS subprogram ele-

ments across year-to-year variations in funding in the series

of presidential budget requests and Congress-enacted

budgets, the Panel’s recommendations for DPS funding lev-

els associated with the Charge Letter’s four budget scenar-

ios were done for the DPS subprogram as a whole, rather

than for individual DPS subprogram elements (GPS, HEDLP,

SO-Systems, and Diagnostic Development and Measure-

ment Innovation).

For the funding associated with the highest-level bud-

get of the Charge Letter’s four scenarios [FY14 ($305M)

with Modest Growth], funding is envisioned for the DPS

Supporting Recommendations, as well as the DPS Primary

Recommendation. The intermediate-scale investments dur-

ing the Phase I and Phase II (see Executive Summary)

should include funding for construction, yearly operations,

facility-staff research, and research program user support.

Even with the advantage of multi-agency cost sharing, the

need will arise for significant investments from FES to pro-

vide a suite of intermediate scale facilities as proposed by

different plasma subfields within DPS. The addition of new,

intermediate-scale facilities should be managed by a peer-

reviewed process cognizant of the strategic directions for

FES, and by a staged construction approach consistent

with the mortgage that each facility will create.

For the funding associated with the lowest-level budget

scenario (FY15 President’s request [$266M] with cost of liv-

ing increases), the Panel recommends reducing the num-

ber of DPS plasma subfields in order to maintain the

world-class quality of the remaining subfields. The process

for restricting which subfields would and would not remain

in the DPS portfolio could include criteria that are identified

in the NRC Plasma 2010 report, and/or that consider which

subfields have a strong focus in other federal agencies. To

29


establish the criteria that would best serve the FES steward-

ship of plasma science, SC should consider a FESAC

review of the wide breadth of plasma subfields and facili-

ties within the DPS portfolio using the criteria of being iden-

tified in the NRC Plasma report, of having a strong focus in

other federal agencies, and of earning a reputation for

excellence. A future FESAC DPS portfolio review will pro-

vide an additional and complementary perspective to activ-

ities associated with the FESAC Committee of Visitors with

the FESAC goal to examine the optimization of a balanced

DPS portfolio with leveraged, high-impact discovery sci-

ence through collaborations on state-of-the-art facilities

[Ref. 20, Appendix H].

For the funding associated with the middle-level bud-

gets of the Charge Letter’s scenarios [(2)-FY14 ($305M)

with cost of living, and (3)-FY14 ($305M) flat funding], the

Panel recommends a compromise between the high- and

low-budget scenarios above.

DPS, 2025 and Beyond

Leading up to 2025, FES workforce development needs

should be integral to all DPS recommendations because of

the large percent of DPS projects that involve graduate stu-

dent PhD thesis research, which directly benefits DPS

research. Workforce development also provides the training

and experience necessary to develop the next generation

of plasma and fusion researchers for all FES subprograms.

By 2025, the major FES facilities should have a DPS

User Community role per the SC description of User Facili-

ties and User Programs [Ref. 21, Appendix H]. This 2025

DPS strategy was not an explicit DPS recommendation

because such a strategy would need to be fully integrated

into the Foundations and Long Pulse research plans for the

major FES facilities.

Chapter 5

Partnerships with Other Federal and International Research Programs

31


Introduction

The DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences has a longstand-

ing practice of reaching out to other federal and international

research programs to establish partnerships. For example,

FES was responsible for the conception and implementation

of leadership-class high-performance computing national

user facilities, begun 40 years ago with the creation of the

National Magnetic Fusion Energy Computer Center, the fore-

runner to the National Energy Research Scientific Computing

Center. In addition to their work on domestic experiments, sci-

entists from the FES program participate in scientific experi-

ments on fusion facilities abroad. International partnerships

are needed more than ever today as new state-of-the-art

fusion facilities are at a scale that requires capital and opera-

tional resources beyond what a single nation can afford.

The Panel was tasked to provide an “assessment of the

potential for strengthened or new partnerships with other fed-

eral and international research programs that may foster

important opportunities otherwise unavailable to U.S. fusion

scientists….” Such strategic partnerships will be critical to

accomplishing the report recommendations, delivering on the

full potential of the Initiatives, and realizing Vision 2025.

Prioritization Criteria

The Panel examined a wide range of potential partnerships

against the following four criteria:

• Importance and urgency, consistent with Vision 2025.

• Return on FES investment, including cost share, cost

avoidance through in-kind contributions, risk reduction,

and accelerated progress to meet Vision 2025.

• Sustained and expanded U.S. leadership in strategic

areas associated with the four priority Initiatives and

Discovery Plasma Science.

• Clear mutual benefit, which we define as both parties

receiving value that they would normally be unable to

produce on their own; bringing complementary strengths

to the partnership; having a stake in the other’s facilities

and program; and respecting each other’s cultural

differences in how the partnership is justified.

The Panel’s findings are summarized below in two tables:

Partnership and levering opportunities within other DOE

and federal programs (Table 1); and opportunities for U.S.

participation in international facilities (Table 2). Detailed

descriptions of the partnerships with DOE and federal pro-

grams can be found in Appendix G.

Federal Partnership Opportunities

Numerous federal agencies, covering a wide range, were

considered for possible partnerships by the Panel (Table I).

Extended comments are provided for the most promising

opportunities relevant to the proposed 10-year plan.

ITER Partnership

While the ITER project is not part of the DOE Charge, the

Panel recognizes the important partnership between the

U.S. and ITER, which includes:

Supporting ITER design and successful completion: In

addition to its direct contributions and procurements to

ITER, the U.S. is expected to continue being a strong con-

tributor in some areas of ongoing research in support of

ITER’s design during construction, including deployment

and demonstration of the efficacy of scaled prototypes of

U.S. deliverables. Some of these areas are: disruption pre-

diction, avoidance, and mitigation, ELM control and ELM-

free operating scenarios, developing ITER-like operating

scenarios, and demonstrating heating, fueling, current drive

and plasma control schemes, simulations and modeling.

Preparing for leading roles in the ITER research program:

The U.S. has traditionally been among the leaders in ongo-

ing fusion science research, which serves to prepare scien-

tists to play leading roles in the scientific productivity on

ITER. The U.S. has been a major participant in the Interna-

tional Tokamak Physics Activity (ITPA) due in large part to

technical contributions from C-Mod, DIII-D, NSTX, and the

U.S. theory and simulation subprogram. The US has also

32


1 “F” stands for Foundations, “LP” for Long Pulse, and “DPS” for Discovery Plasma Science. A “low” opportunity corresponds to meeting one or fewer of the four Panel prioritization criteria,

a “medium” meets two or three criteria, while a “high” meets all four criteria.

Federal Program

DOE Office of Science

Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)

Basic Energy Sciences (BES)

High Energy Physics (HEP)

Nuclear Physics (NP)

Other DOE Programs

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

Fossil Energy (FE)

Nuclear Energy (NE)

Nat. Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Other Federal Programs Dept. Of Defense (DOD)

Nat. Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)

Nat. Inst. of Standards & Technology (NIST)

Nat. Science Foundation (NSF)

FES Themes Benefitting

F,LP, DPS LP

LP,DPS

LP

DPS

LP

LP

LP

DPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

DPS

Current Partnership Status

Moderate-Strong

Moderate

Minimal

None

Minimal

None

Minimal

Moderate

Moderate

Minimal

None

None

Strong

Comments

Exemplary relationship resulting in U.S. leadership in fusion theory, simulation, and computation. Future SciDAC opportuni-ties for DPS are also evident (cf. Ch. 4) Joint operations of the LCLS MEC Station and long- standing fusion materials irradiation programs using BES reactor neutron sources. Materials Science PI-to-PI interactions evident in core FES programs and BES Energy Frontier Research Centers. Mutual benefits of spallation-neutron-sources use for fusion materials irradiation studies need to be evaluated.

Modest overlap in plasma science (advanced accelerator and HEDLP) and fusion technology (high-temperature superconduct-ing magnets).

New Nuclear Physics Program identifies Nuclear Engineering and Applications as a primary client for nuclear data.

New program announced in Aug. 2014.

Supports fundamental investigations of additive manufacturing for producing high-performance components that would be difficult or impossible to fabricate using conventional means.

Supports leading approach for developing new steels in both fossil and fusion energy systems based on computational thermodynamics and thermomechanical treatments. Provides infrastructure, materials programs, and nuclear regulatory expertise that should be of significant value to FES as it moves toward an FNS Program.

NNSA-ASCR partnership to develop the next generation computing platforms enables fusion scientists to maintain world-leading capability. Significant HEDLP discovery science opportunities exist on world leading NNSA-operated laser and pulsed-power facilities.

DOE supports individual HEDLP and ICF projects on DOD facilities. Otherwise, missions are non-overlapping.

Non-overlapping missions but shared interest in high-heat flux technologies and high-temperature structural materials.

Complementary materials R&D spanning nanoscience materials to advanced manufacturing.

Exemplary relationship, with further opportunities for new Joint programs for research and intermediate-scale facilities.

New or Expanded Opportunity Level

High

Medium to High

Medium

Medium

Unknown at this time

Medium

Medium

High

Medium to High

Low

Low

Low

High

Table 1: Federal Agencies with complementary programs relevant to FES1

33


33

had a major impact on the ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM)

Program through leadership in the Test Blanket Working

Group and its successor the TBM Program Committee.

Nevertheless, research leading toward and beyond ITER

could take advantage of the new capabilities under con-

struction or already in operation in the international land-

scape. U.S. capabilities over the next decade, together with

international collaborations in areas where the U.S. can

have a partnering role, will allow the domestic program to

advance the Foundations-related and Long-Pulse-related

Thrusts while preparing and maintaining the workforce that

will play a key role in ITER productivity.

Positioning the U.S. to benefit from the results of the ITER

research program: A successful ITER research program,

along with parallel progress in the FNS Initiative, will pro-

vide much of the basis needed to proceed to a fusion

DEMO. To position the U.S. to benefit from ITER results

and proceed toward energy development requires grow-

ing a strong domestic program in fusion nuclear science.

At the same time, the U.S. must maintain leadership in the

areas of theory and simulation, in materials science, and

in technology.

International Partnership Opportunities (Non-ITER)

Two thorough assessments of international collaboration

opportunities were conducted by a community task force

commissioned by the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization in

2011, and by FESAC in 2012 [Appendix H]. Although nei-

ther of these studies considered trade-of fs between

domestic and international programs in the context of con-

strained FES budgets, their recommended modes of col-

laboration, research priorities, and evaluation criteria served

as a basis for the Panel’s strategic planning.

Building upon the 2012 FESAC report, the Panel spent

considerable time comparing and contrasting FES international

collaborations with those supported by the DOE High Energy

Physics (HEP) Program. A majority of high energy physicists in

the U.S. perform research at international facilities. In contrast,

FES participation in international experiments is an order of

magnitude lower.

International collaborations have been useful for the

design of fusion neutron sources such as the proposed

International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF),

based on an earlier U.S. design. There are potential opportu-

nities for U.S. fusion researchers to gain access to unique

foreign facilities, such as: (1) large scale corrosion and ther-

momechanical test loop facilities; (2) high heat flux and plas-

ma material interaction facilities, tokamak diverter exposure

facilities (WEST, EAST, ASDEX, etc; (3) future possible fusion

neutron irradiation facilities such as IFMIF: (4) tritium facili-

ties; and (5) collaborations with operational, safety and regu-

latory experts on how to best develop a performance-based

regulatory basis for fusion power (Canada, IAEA, JET, ITER).

The Max Planck-Princeton Center for Plasma Physics,

which has the mission of making greater use of the synergies

between fusion research and astrophysics, is a formal partner-

ship supported by FES that cuts across Foundations and DPS.

The table on the adjacent page shows summary and

status of partnerships with large international devices.

Initiative-Relevant Partnerships

The Panel acknowledges the informal efforts of fusion sci-

entists who, on their own initiative, collaborate with intellec-

tual leaders from complementary disciplines supported by

other federal programs, international facilities, or as part of

their own FES funded research. Such interactions provide

important indications of opportunities that could evolve into

formal federal strategic partnerships.

For Vision 2025 to be accomplished, strategic federal

and international par tnerships need to be formed and

maintained at a level that optimizes the execution of the

Initiatives. For the FES Discovery Science subprogram,

partnerships with other DOE offices or federal programs

will be impor tant in order for DPS scientists to access

relevant existing or new machines in the fur therance of

their research.

34


2 A “major upgrade” is defined as a significant capital project that required at least a one year downtime in user program operations. A “minimal” partnership corresponds to fewer than two

scientist and engineer FTEs, “moderate” being between two and five FTEs, and “strong” greater than five FTEs

Transients Initiative

For this Initiative to be successful, it will be important for

U.S. researchers to collaborate in the second half of the

10-year plan on long pulse tokamak devices such as EAST

and KSTAR and, when operational, JT60-SA. The collabo-

rations should cover long pulse plasma control and sus-

tainment as well as work solely on the elimination of

transient events. The Panel views this as a mutually benefi-

cial par tnership in that research teams from EAST and

KSTAR can be included in ELM, disruption, and plasma

control research on short-pulse devices in the U.S.. The

par tnership between EAST and DIII-D appears to be

mature, productive, and mutually beneficial. It will be

important for FES to continue to support particularly the

EAST partnership through maintenance of the appropriate

partnership agreements. JT60-SA presents a particularly

promising future par tnership oppor tunity due to its

increased size relative to EAST and KSTAR, and at the

appropriate point in the decade partnership agreements

should be established as dictated by strategic need for

this and the other Initiatives.

Supporting Recommendation

Develop a mutually beneficial partnership agreement with

JT60-SA, similar to those already established on EAST and

KSTAR, that will allow U.S. fusion researchers access to this

larger-scale, long-pulse device in support of the report

Initiatives.

The major challenges for Fusion Nuclear Science are to

understand the ability of the first wall and diver tor to

accommodate reactor-level power and particle fluences

while allowing the toroidal plasma to be controlled and

sustained in a stationary, high pressure state. In addition,

increasing research is needed to explore credible

options for the structural materials, blanket and tritium

production and extraction approaches for a long pulse

fusion nuclear science facility that would be capable of

Major Foreign Facilities

First Plasma or Beam on Target

First Plasma after last major upgrade

Current Partnership Status

Initiative Contribution

Comments

ASDEX Upgrade Tokamak (Germany)

1991 Minimal Predictive Excellent diagnostics

EAST Tokamak (China)

2007 2014 Strong Interface, Transients Superconducting long pulse tokamak; hot W divertor

JET Tokamak (UK) 1983 2012(ITER-like Wall)

Minimal Fusion Nuclear Science

D-T experiments with Be/W wall

JT60 Tokamak (Japan)

1985 2019 JT60-SA Minimal Predictive Advanced superconducting tokamak, size scaling

KSTAR Tokamak (S.Korea)

2008 Moderate Interface, Transients Superconducting long pulse tokamak

LHD Stellarator 1998 2013Helical divertor

Minimal Interface Superconducting long pulse stellarator with helical divertor

MAST Spherical Torus (UK)

1999 2015 Moderate Interface Super-X divertor

Tore Supra Tokamak (France)

1988 2015 (WEST)

None Interface Superconducting long pulse tokamak

W7-X Stellarator (Germany)

2015 Strong Interface, Predictive

Superconducting long pulse stellarator with island divertor

Table 2: International partnership opportunities2

35


high temperature (reactor relevant) operation at moder-

ate duty cycles.

Strategic international par tnerships are therefore

required over the next decade to investigate key scientific

issues, specifically collaborations that exploit the unique

capabilities of superconducting long pulse tokamaks such

as EAST, KSTAR, the JET-sized superconducting tokamak

JT-60SA, which will start operation in 2019, and stellarators

including LHD and W7-X. A partnership that exploits the

divertor studies planned for the smaller-scale supercon-

ducting tokamak WEST could also be valuable for resolving

critical scientific issues in PMI. Reference to these interna-

tional facilities can be found in Appendix G.

As mentioned above, a highly collaborative relationship

already exists with EAST that can be capitalized on for

investigation of divertor issues and other PMI challenges.

There is also a formal agreement between the U.S. and

W7-X that will be valuable for developing PMI solutions.

These partnerships will produce the critical data needed for

the next step in designing a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility.

Experimentally Validated Integrated Predictive Capabili-

ties Initiative

International partnerships also have an important role to play

in this Initiative. Experiments conducted on international facil-

ities that have the requisite diagnostic capability will provide

the necessary data for model validation. Collaborations with

international theorists through individual exchanges and

through formal projects (such as verification exercises coor-

dinated by the International Tokamak Physics Activity) will

spur development of key modules. Ultimately, a mature pre-

dictive model can provide advance information needed to

plan productive experiments on large international devices.

Fusion Nuclear Science Initiative

An important need for the success of the fusion nuclear sci-

ence Initiative is the ability to understand the behavior of

materials in an intense neutron field. To achieve that under-

standing, a new fusion materials neutron-irradiation facility

that levers an existing MW-level neutron spallation source is

envisioned as a highly cost-effective option. Such a facility

exists in the BES program (Spallation Neutron Source). This

rises to such high importance that the following partnership

recommendation is made to FES.

Supporting Recommendation:

Develop a mutually beneficial partnership with BES that

would enable fusion materials scientists access to the

Spallation Neutron Source for irradiation studies. Such a

partnership will require frequent and effective FES-BES

communication, strong FES project management that ad-

heres to Office of Science Project Management best prac-

tices, and acceptable mitigation of operational risks.

Collaboration with ITER’s test blanket module (TBM) pro-

gram is an important aspect of supporting the FNS Initiative

by establishing the science and technology for blanket

development, tritium breeding, extraction and fuel-cycle

sustainability.

An area that has received little attention is the safety

and associated regulations required to operate nuclear

fusion devices. However, expertise exists in federal and

international programs that FES can leverage to develop the

appropriate regulatory approach. These programs include

NE, NRC, IAEA, ITER, and JET.


There are mutually beneficial, multi-agency partnership

opportunities for DPS research activities. FES could explore

an expansion of partnership opportunities between SC and

NNSA, as well as across other federal agencies (e.g., NSF,

NASA, DOD, NIST, EPA).

Within DOE SC, the highly productive Scientific Discov-

ery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) partnership is

an example of strengths across all six SC offices. SciDAC

partnerships between ASCR and FES are directed toward

the development and application of computer simulation

codes for advancing the science of magnetically confined

plasmas. Predictive modeling codes have a pivotal role in

all three thematic areas: BPS Foundation, BPS Long Pulse,

and Discovery Plasma Science. In addition, there is the

Matter at Extreme Conditions (MEC) end station of the Lin-

ac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) user facility at the SLAC

National Accelerator Laboratory that serves as an example

36


of a successful BES-FES partnership that provides users

with access to HED regimes uniquely coupled with a high-

brightness x-ray source.

Partnerships also exist within DPS across federal agen-

cies. One is the NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Sci-

ence and Engineering that provides funding opportunities

for small-group and single-investigator research activities

unrelated to fusion. Although underfunded in the FY2015

President’s Budget Request (Budget Scenario 4), there is

also the NNSA-SC Joint Program in High Energy Density

Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP). The NNSA component of the

HEDLP partnership still remains as the Stewardship Sci-

ence Academic Alliances for academic research in the

areas of materials under extreme conditions, low energy

nuclear science, radiochemistry, and high energy density

physics.

Although the description found in Appendix D of the

NRC Plasma 2010 report “Federal Support for Plasma Sci-

ence and Engineering” points out that plasma research

across the various government agencies did not lend itself

to a comprehensive view of federal investments, the report

listed the following plasma research areas funded by agen-

cies in addition to DOE SC:

• NSF investments in low-temperature plasma science as

well as space and astrophysical plasmas,

• NNSA as the primary funding agency for HED physics,

and

• NASA support of space and astrophysical plasmas.

One partnership goal that could be fruitful would be in the

area of mutually beneficial, intermediate-scale facilities for

expanding research into new plasma regimes (also dis-

cussed in the NRC Plasma 2010 report), with the option of

co-funding for construction, operations, and the corre-

sponding user research program.

Chapter 6

Budgetary considerations

39


Budgetary considerations: Introduction

Here the Panel considers the actionable items recommended

by this report, namely the four Initiatives, and how their imple-

mentation is tied to the four budget scenarios specified in the

Charge. The Initiatives have been given short titles for conve-

nience: Transients, Interface, Predictions, and Fusion Nuclear

Science (FNS). The Initiatives are described in non-scientific

terms in the Executive Summary, in integrated form and more

detail in Chapter 1, and in scientific detail specific to either

Foundations or Long Pulse in Chapters 2 and 3. The four bud-

get scenarios are bounded on the high end by Budget Sce-

nario 1 ($305M in FY14 with modest growth of 4.1% per year)

and on the low end by Budget Scenario 4 (FY15 President’s

Budget Request of $266M with cost of living increase of

2.1% per year). Over the 10 years considered here, from

FY15 through FY24, the total integrated amount between the

two bounding cases differs by approximately $900 million.

The key question is how should the U.S. FES program

be optimized under the different budget scenarios so that

as much as possible of Vision 2025 is achieved, as many of

the four Initiatives are completed, and the U.S. fusion ener-

gy community maintains its leadership roles in as many

areas as possible?

The approach the Panel took for each budget scenario

was to maximize the number of Initiatives undertaken within

the constraints outlined below. Note that the Panel did not

perform a detailed budget analysis of the budget options pre-

scribed in the Charge. Further analysis by DOE is required to

develop a credible, budget-consistent 10-year Plan.

Facilities

Based on community input, the Long Pulse and Foundations

subpanels estimated the requirements for each of their contri-

butions to the four Initiatives. Two new experimental facilities

and associated operations are implied. One, for the FNS Initia-

tive, is a neutron-irradiation capability. The other, for the Inter-

face Initiative, is a facility or facilities for investigating boundary

plasma-materials interactions and their consequences. Cost

considerations determined that this aspect of the Interface Ini-

tiative was best explored using an iterative process involving

data from a new linear divertor simulator, data from one or more

of NSTX-U and DIII-D with upgraded tokamak-divertor(s), and

results from modeling and simulation. The Panel expects that

one U.S. facility for innovative boundary studies with advanced

divertor scenarios will be upgraded during the latter half of the

10-year period. This effort will make use of the fundamental

studies of plasma-materials interaction in the Long Pulse sub-

program, and will transition to steady-state boundary research

on long-pulse international superconducting tokamaks, also in

the Long Pulse subprogram.

The Panel assumed the funding required for each of the

four Initiatives would be obtained by reallocating funds from

the budget category Foundations Operations, or possibly

from Discovery Plasma Science. Concerning the operation of

the existing major tokamak facilities, the Panel reached the

following decisions:

• Propose the closure of C-MOD as soon as possible, con-

sistent with orderly transition of the staff and graduate

students to other efforts, including experiments at other

facilities where appropriate At the same time, the Panel

agreed that the associated C-MOD research funds would

be maintained in full for research on other facilities, while

the operations funding will be redirected to the proposed

Initiatives. Prompt closure of C-MOD is necessary to fund

as quickly as possible the necessary upgrades at DIII-D,

to build the linear divertor simulator, and for the whole-

plasma-domain modeling effort in the Predictive Initiative.

DIII-D experiments using these upgrades are essential to

achieve the Vision 2025 goals. The linear divertor simula-

tor and tokamak-divertor experiments should be started

as soon as feasible.

It is imperative for the U.S. Fusion Program that the

knowledge, excellence, and leadership of the scientists

from the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center be

maintained and applied to the Initiatives to assure suc-

cess. In particular, graduate students currently pursuing

thesis research on C-MOD need a path to thesis comple-

tion. To this end, the Panel recognizes that is the respon-

sibility of DOE to develop a “C-MOD Transition Plan”

which describes the plan (including timeline) for shut-

40


down of C-MOD and reassignment of the workforce to

other activities described in this report.

• Beyond the cessation of C-MOD, the Panel reached the

following conclusions on facilities:

Between ~2015 and ~2020, both NSTX-U and DIII-D

should be available for ITER-related research, for as-

sessing FNSF magnetic geometry (in particular NSTX-U),

and for the Transients Initiative (in particular DIII-D).

The Panel expects expanded and new international

partnerships to develop.

Between ~2020 and ~2025, at least one or the other of

NSTX-U and DIII-D is required, including for ITER-related

research, and for the Interface and Predictions Initiatives.

The Panel expects new international partnerships on su-

perconducting tokamaks and stellarators to flourish.

After 2025, one facility is required both for a user facil-

ity for DPS and for programmatic fusion research. The

best facility for the period beyond 2025 is not necessar-

ily the same as the best facility for the 5 years prior to

2025. If this is the case, then cold storage, i.e., moth-

balling, should be considered.

Between 2015 and 2025 the DPS program is strength-

ened by peer-reviewed university, national laboratory, and

industry collaborations. These collaborations would be

enhanced by federal partnerships involving cost sharing

of collaborative, intermediate-scale facilities in order to re-

alize the broadest range of plasma science discoveries.

With such collaborations in place, the DPS program will be

able to train the next generation of plasma scientists to

ensure continuing U.S. leadership in plasma science.

Implementation

For each of the budget scenarios, it was assumed that the sci-

entific workforce was retained in the event of a facility closure.

In reallocating funds to the Initiatives there were obvious prob-

lems with time histories as facility closures result in sudden

funding reductions and adoption of new Initiatives require a

more gradual funding increase. Again, a more detailed analysis

by DOE is required to generate an accurate 10-year budget.

For the first 5 years (2015 to 2020) the number of run

weeks of the two operating facilities (NSTX-U and DIII-D)

should be kept high (significantly higher than in the recent

past). Between 2020 and 2025, the number of facilities would

be at least one, with the date of any shut down (or cold storage

/ mothball) being budget-dependent. In addition, if two facili-

ties were maintained (perhaps possible only in Budget Sce-

nario 1), the operational availability of one but not both could

be reduced.

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

FES Domestic Program Budgets in As-Spent Dollars

Scenario 1: Modest Growth @ 4.1%

Scenario 2: C-O-L ($305M) @ 2.1%

Scenario 3: Flat Funding

Scenario 4: C-O-L ($266M) @ 2.1%

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

FY2024

41


Findings

The Panel performed a preliminary examination of funding

scenarios for the MFE-ReNeW Thrusts, based on the com-

munity input, in order to derive approximate funding

requirements for the highest priority research activities. Key

points from this examination and the Panel’s analysis are

the following:

• The Panel developed notional budget breakouts

between Foundations, Long Pulse and Discovery Plas-

ma Science (DPS) for the modest growth case (Sce-

nario 1)). For this case, the Panel recommends a

significant shift in resources from Foundations to Long

Pulse over the next ten years, with escalation but no

shift applied to DPS. For context, a significant fraction

of the FES program devoted to Foundations is transi-

tioned to Long Pulse. This shift is the major strategic

budget recommendation of this panel.

• The panel estimated the needed funds for BP-Long

Pulse for all scenarios, and believes the 10-year total

should range from approximately $1.3B (for the modest

growth case) to approximately $1B (in Scenario 4).

• It must be emphasized again the Panel did not perform a

detailed budget analysis, including facility “ramp-downs”

and “ramp-ups,” etc. This would be the responsibility

of FES in generating a credible, budget-consistent 10

year plan.

• Impacts of the various scenarios are discussed below.

Note that the Panel only considered the impact of the

scenarios on the four Initiatives, major tokamak availabil-

ity, and operations of the divertor and neutron-irradiation

capability. The Panel did not consider the overall sustain-

ability of the FES Program and the degree to which the

U.S. maintains world leadership. The Panel strongly

believes the strategic changes in the Program direction,

discussed above and elsewhere in the report, will ensure

the U.S. is in a position to exert long-term leadership

roles within and among each of the three Fusion Energy

Sciences subprograms specified in the charge.

Panel members developed the conclusions/budget impacts

shown below, organized by the highest to lowest budget

scenarios. All dates are to be taken as approximate:

Budget Scenario 1: Modest growth of appropriated

FY2014 ($305M) at 4.1%

This has the highest integrated funding. Vision 2025 has an

acceptable probability of being achieved. Both NSTX-U and

DIII-D facilities operate for 5 years and possibly 10 years with

reduced availability possible in Phase II, with one upgraded

divertor and a neutron-irradiation capability. If funding only

one of the facilities is possible, it is not yet clear which is

optimal. After 10 years, it is expected that only one facility will

be required, but it is not clear, at this time, which one. All four

Initiatives go forward, informing the design of FNSF. The lin-

ear divertor simulator, the upgraded tokamak-divertor, and

the neutron-irradiation facility are providing data. The U.S.

Fusion Program features prominently in four areas: Tran-

sients, Interface, Predictions, and, importantly, FNS.

Budget Scenario 2: FY2014 with 2.1% cost of living

This has the second highest integrated funding, but at the

end of FY2024 these integrated funds are approximately

$400M less than in Budget Scenario 1. There is a lower prob-

ability that Vision 2025 can be met. One of the two remaining

major tokamak facilities, DIII-D or NSTX-U, will be closed or

mothballed between 2020 and 2025. One linear divertor sim-

ulator, the upgrade tokamak-divertor, the neutron-irradiation

facility, and/or DPS funds may be affected. Only one major

tokamak facility is required beyond 2025. One of the two

remaining major tokamak facilities, DIII-D and NSTX-U, will

be closed or mothballed between 2020 and 2025. All four

Initiatives go forward, with three (Transients, Interface, Pre-

dictions) being emphasized. If necessary the Tier 2 Initiative

FNS is slowed down. The U.S. Fusion Program features

prominently in at least three Initiative areas (Transients, Inter-

face, Predictions), with the possibility of featuring prominent-

ly in the FNS Initiative. While the U.S. program will remain

influential in niche areas, the prospect for U.S. leadership in

the frontiers of fusion nuclear science leading to energy

development beyond the ten-year vision is diminished, and

progressively so as the budget is reduced.

42


Budget Scenario 3: FY2014 flat

This has the third highest integrated funding, but at the end

of FY2024 these integrated funds are approximately $780M

less than the highest budget, Budget Scenario 1. Vision

2025 will be only partially met. One of the two remaining

facilities, DIII-D or NSTX-U, will be closed or mothballed

between 2020 and 2025, earlier than in the Budget Sce-

nario 2. DPS funds will be reduced slightly in addition to a

small further reduction in Foundations funds, e.g., the linear

divertor simulator and the upgraded tokamak-divertor are

operating, but the neutron-irradiation facility may not be

possible in spite of closing a second major facility sooner.

The two Tier 1 Initiatives (Transients, Interface) and one Tier

2 Initiative (Predictions) go forward, but the Tier 2 Initiative

FNS is slowed further. The U.S. Fusion Program features

prominently in two areas, Transients and Interface, or possi-

bly three, the third being the Predictive Initiative. Maintaining

U.S. leadership in any broad emerging area by the end of

the ten-year plan would be compromised, as the fusion

nuclear science component represents the key new element

of U.S. entry into fusion science development near the end

of the ten-year plan, even as the challenges addressed by

the Transients and Interface Initiatives would be pursued.

Budget Scenario 4: FY2015 request with 2.1% cost

of living

Integrated funding over the 10 year period is approximately

$900M less that Budget Scenario 1. Vision 2025 will be par-

tially met, but a second Initiative is lost. One of the two

remaining facilities, DIII-D or NSTX-U, will be closed or moth-

balled around 2020, which may be earlier than in the Budget

Scenario 3. DPS funds will be reduced slightly in addition to

a small further reduction in Foundations funds, e.g., one or

both of the linear divertor simulatior and the upgraded toka-

mak-divertor may not be possible in spite of closing a sec-

ond major facility around 2020. The neutron-irradiation

facility cannot be funded. It is expected that the U.S. will be

influential in the research fields encompassed by the two

Tier-1 Initiatives, specifically Transients and Interface. The

necessary delay to the FNS and Predictive Initiatives will

leave significant obstacles in the path to fusion power pre-

cisely where the U.S. is best situated to lead the way. While

the U.S. could maintain a significant role in resolving the two

Tier I Initiatives, the delay to the other two Initiatives cedes

the leading role in these areas to the international programs.

The U.S. would be in a weak position to proceed as an inno-

vative center of fusion science beyond 2025.

An additional consideration in the lower budget scenarios is

how to best utilize any mid-year augmentation that might be

appropriated in a single fiscal year. For a small one-time

increase, priority should be given to making whole any reduc-

tions to the Tier 2 Predictive Initiative. For a larger increase,

both Tier 2 Initiatives, Predictive and FNS, should be aug-

mented. Any increase large enough to beneficially influence

FNS would simultaneously extend benefits to the Predictive

Initiative, which is less expensive overall than the FNS Initia-

tive. The Panel concluded that, under the circumstances of

an even larger one-time increase, building and operating the

neutron-irradiation facility would be strategically important for

exerting long-term world leadership in FNS.

Appendices

45


Appendix A: Summary of Initiatives and Recommendations

Each subpanel identified candidate initiatives, primary and

suppor ting recommendations, and minimum funding

requirements to meet Vision 2025.

For Foundations and Long Pulse, priorities were deter-

mined by considering the following set of metrics:

• Importance: Necessity of the activity for ensuring that

the U.S. is in a position to exert long-term leadership

roles within the fusion energy mission as extrapolated

from present knowledge.

• Urgency: Necessity of the activity that is required

immediately and in the near future.

• Generality: Breadth of activity across FES subprograms

and subprogram elements and necessity of the activity

for resolving generic issues across different designs or

approaches for ITER, FNSF, or DEMO, the demonstra-

tion fusion reactor facility.

• Leadership Sustainment: Necessity of investment in

order to sustain leading U.S. influence on progress of

the field.

• Leadership-Loss Mitigation: Necessity of investment in

order to mitigate loss of U.S. leadership (short and long

term) where the U.S. now leads.

• Opportunity Reaching: Necessity of investment in order

to turn a gap-opportunity pair into U.S. leadership for

the long term.

• ITER/FNS Need: Necessity of investment in order to

address the need to establish the scientific basis for

advancing fusion nuclear science.

• Leverage and Partnering: Necessity of investment in

order to strengthen or create a new partnership with

other federal and international research programs that

may foster important scientific opportunities otherwise

unavailable to U.S. fusion scientists.

• Efficiency: All criteria above, normalized by required

magnitude of additional emphasis or investment.

For DPS, priorities were determined by considering the fol-

lowing set of metrics (further details in Chapter 4):

• Advancing the frontiers of plasma innovation and plas-

ma applications.

• Forming collaborations between universities, national

laboratories and industry, and across federal agencies.

• Achieving cross cutting benefits to all FES subpro-

grams, especially in training the next generation of

plasma scientists.

The Partnership and Leverage subpanel determined priori-

ties using the following four criteria (further details are in

Chapter 5):

1. Importance and urgency consistent with Vision 2025;

2. Return on FES investment;

3. Sustained & expanded U.S. leadership; and

4. Clear mutual benefit.

The Panel integrated and iterated these findings, resulting

in four high priority Initiatives that could be accommodated

over ten years under a majority of the budget scenarios.

These Initiatives were further ranked into upper and lower

tiers, with an understanding that those in the lower tier

would be delayed under the lower budget scenarios.

46


2025 Vision: (1) Enable successful operation of ITER with a significant leading participation by the U.S. (2) Provide the scientific basis for a U.S. Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) and (3) Create a U.S. “Generation ITER-FNSF” workforce that is leading scientific discoveries and technological innovation.

Tier 1 Initiatives: Four Primary Recommend

Control deleterious transient events in burning plasmas: Undesirable transients in tokamak plasmas are ubiquitous but tolerable occurrences in most present-day experiments, but will prove too destructive in larger tokamaks. To either avoid these or negate their consequences, both passive and active control techniques, as well as preemptive plasma-shut-down measures, will be employed.

Taming the plasma-material interface: The critically important boundary region of a fusion plasma involves the transition from the high-temperature plasma core to the surrounding material. Understanding the specific properties of this boundary region that determine the overall plasma confinement is a priority. At the same time, the properties of this boundary region control the heat and particle fluxes incident on material surface. The response of the material surfaces influences the boundary region itself. Understanding, accommodating, and controlling this complex interaction, including materials selection to withstand this harsh environment while maintaining high confinement, is a prerequisite for ITER success and for designing FNSF. The panel concluded that the most cost-effective path to a self-consistent solution requires the construction of a prototypic high-power and high-fluence linear divertor simulator. Results from this facility will be iterated with experimental results on suitably equipped domestic and international tokamaks and stellarators, as well as in numerical simulations.

Control of Burning Plasmas: The FES experimental program needs an integrated and prioritized approach to achieve significant leading participation by the U.S. on ITER. Specifically, new proposed solutions will be applied to two long-standing and ubiquitous show-stop-ping issues, relevant for tokamak-based burning fusion plasma. The issues are: (1) dealing with unwanted transients, and (2) dealing the interaction between the plasma boundary and material walls.

Tier 2 Initiatives:

Experimentally Validated Integrated Predictive Capabilities: The coming decade provides an opportunity to break ground in integrated predictive understanding that is urgently required as the ITER era begins and plan are developed for the next generation of facilities. Traditionally, plasma theory and simulation provide models for isolated phenomena based on mathematical formulations that have restricted validity regimes. However, there are crucial situations where the coupling between the validity regime and the phenomena is required, which implies that new phenomena can appear. To understand and predict these situations requires expanded computing capabilities strongly coupled to enhancements in analytic theory and the use of applied mathematics. This effort must be strongly connected to a spectrum of plasma experimental facilities supported by a vigorous diagnostics subprogram in order to provide crucial tests of theory and allow for validation.

Fusion Predictive Modeling: The FES theory and simulation subprogram should develop the modeling capability to understand, predict, and control (a) burning, long pulse fusion plasmas and (b) plasma facing components. Such a capability when combined with experimental operational experience will maximize the U.S. operation and interpretation of ITER results for long pulse, burning plasmas, and decide the necessary requirements for future fusion facilities. This endeavor must encompass the regions from plasma core through to the edge and into the surrounding materials, and requires coupling nonlinear, multi-scale, multi-disciplin-ary phenomena, in experimentally validated, theoretically based models.

Fusion Nuclear Science: Several important near-term decisions will shape the pathway toward practical fusion energy. The selection of the plasma magnetic configuration (an advanced tokamak, spherical torus, or stellarator) and plasma operational regimes needs to be established based on focused domestic and international collaborative long-pulse, high-power research. Another need is the identification of a viable approach to a robust plasma-materials interface that provides acceptably high heat flux capability and low net erosion rates without impairing plasma performance or tritium entrapment. Materials science research needs to be expanded to comprehend and mitigate fusion neutron-irradiation effects and fundamental research is needed to identify a feasible tritium fuel-cycle and power-conversion concept. A new fusion materials neutron-irradiation facility that leverages an existing MW-level neutron spallation source is envisioned as a highly cost-effective option.

Fusion Nuclear Science: A fusion nuclear science subprogram should be created to provide the science and technology understanding for informing decisions on the preferred plasma confinement, materials, and tritium fuel-cycle concepts for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF), a proposed U.S.-based international centerpiece beyond 2025. FNSF’s mission is to utilize an experimental long-pulse (one million second duration) plasma platform for the complex integration and for the convergence of fusion plasma science and fusion nuclear science.

In concert with the above Initiatives, Discovery Plasma Science will advance the frontiers of plasma knowledge to continue U.S. leadership.

Discovery Plasma Science: FES stewardship of basic plasma research should be accomplished through strengthening of peer-reviewed university, national laboratory, and industry collaborations. In order to realize the broadest range of plasma science discoveries, the research should be enhanced through federal-agency partnerships that include cost-sharing of intermediate-scale collaborative facilities.

47


BPS Foundations Supporting Recommendations BPS Long Pulse Supporting Recommendations Partnerships Supporting Recommendations

Supporting Recommendation: Maintain the strong experimental U.S. focus on eliminating and/or mitigating destructive transient events to enable the high-performance operation of ITER. Develop improved predictive modeling of plasma behavior during controlled transient events to explore the basis for the disruption-free sus-tained tokamak scenario for FNSF and DEMO.

Supporting Recommendation: Develop a mutually beneficial partnership agreement with JT60-SA, similar to those already established on EAST and KSTAR, that will allow U.S. fusion researchers access to this larger-scale, long-pulse device in support of the Report's initiatives.

Supporting Recommendation: Undertake a technical assessment with community experts to ascertain which existing facility could most effectively address the key boundary physics issues.

Supporting Recommendation: To design and build an advanced multi-effects linear divertor simulator to support the "interface" initiative.

Supporting Recommendation: Maintain and strengthen existing base theory and SCIDAC subprograms to maintain world leadership and leverage activities with the broader applied mathematics and computer science communities Supporting Recommendation: Ensure excel-lence in the Experimentally Validated Integrated Predictive Capabilities Initiative with a peer-reviewed, competitive proposal process. A community-wide process is needed to precisely define the scope and implementation strategy for ultimately realizing a whole-device predictive model.

Supporting Recommendation: To design and build a new fusion materials neutron-irradiation facility that leverages an existing MW-level neutron spallation source to support the Fusion Nuclear Sciences Initiative. Supporting Recommendation: To invest in a research subprogram element on blanket technologies and tritium sustainability that will advance studies from single to multiple effects and interactions.

Supporting Recommendation: Develop a mutually beneficial partnership with BES that would enable fusion materials scientist access to the Spallation Neutron Source for irradiation studies. Such a partnership will require frequent and effective FES-BES communication, strong FES project management that adheres to Office of Science Project Management best practices, and acceptable mitigation of operational risks.

Discovery Plasma Science (DPS) Supporting Recommendations for GPS, HEDLP, SO-systems, and Diagnostic Innovation

DPS HEDLP Supporting Recommendation: FES should avail itself of levering opportunities at both SC and NNSA high-energy-density-physics user facilities, within the context of the NNSA-SC Joint Program in HEDLP, especially for the FES HEDLP community researchers who have been awarded experimental shot time.DPS Self-Organized Systems Supporting Recommendation: FES should manage the elements of SO-Systems using subprogram-wide metrics with peer reviews occurring every 3 to 5 years to provide a suite of capabilities that is more than sum of the individual parts and that explore a broader set scientific questions. DPS Diagnostic Measurement Innovations Supporting Recommendation: FES should manage diagnostic development and measurement innovation to have a coordinated cross-cutting set of predictive model validation activities across all DPS subprogram elements: GPS, HEDLP, and SO-Systems.

48


Appendix B: Charge Letter

49


50


Appendix C: Panel Roster

Kevin Bowers Los Alamos National Laboratory (guest scientist)

Troy Carter University of California, Los Angeles

Don Correll Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Arati Dasgupta Naval Research Laboratory

Chris Hegna University of Wisconsin, Madison

William “Bill” Heidbrink University of California, Irvine

Stephen Knowlton Auburn University (retired)

Mark Koepke Panel Chair: West Virginia University

Douglas Kothe Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Stan Milora Oak Ridge National Lab (retired)

David E. Newman University of Alaska

Gert Patello Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Don Rej Los Alamos National Laboratory

Susana Reyes Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

John Steadman University of South Alabama

Karl A. Van Bibber University of California, Berkeley

Alan Wootton University of Texas, Austin (retired)

Minami Yoda Georgia Institute of Technology

Steve Zinkle Panel Vice Chair: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

51


Appendix D: Panel Process and Meetings

Week 1 14–18 April Finalize SP panel membership,

initiate invitation process

Week 3 28 April–2 May 1st SP Teleconference:

Plans for Process and Gathering Input

Week 6 19–23 May 2nd SP Telecon:

Gathered Input-relevant reports

Week 8 2–6 June 1st SP Meeting:

Mon 1830 to Friday 1330 with 3-days of talks

Week 13 7–11 July 2nd SP Meeting:

Mon 0900 to Friday 1330 with 3-days of talks

Week 19 18–22 August 3rd SP Telecon:

Priority Assessment

Week 20 25–29 August 4th SP Telecon:

Budget Scenarios

Week 21 2–5 September 3rd SP Meeting:

Tues 1830 to Friday 1700 with no talks

Week 24 22–26 September Monday, Tuesday,

FESAC SP Panel Report Approval Meeting

52


Author(s) Title or Subject

Mohamed Abdou, Alice Ying, Sergey Smolentsev, and Neil

B. Morley of UCLA

Scientific Framework for Advancing Blanket/FW/Tritium Fuel

Cycle Systems towards FNSF & DEMO Readiness—Input to

FESAC Strategic Plan Panel on Blanket/FW Research

Initiatives

Ed Barnat, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

N.M.

Dynamic exploratory clusters: Facilitating inter-disciplinary

discovery driven research

L.R. Baylor, G.L. Bell, T. S. Bigeloww, J. B. Caughman, R.

H. Goulding, G.R. Hanson, and D.A. Rasmussen, ORNL, J.

C. Hosea, G. Taylor, and R. Perkins, PPPL, J. M. Lohr, P. B.

Parks, and R. I. Pinsker, GA, G. Nusinovich, U. of Mary-

land, M. A. Shapiro and R. J. Temkin, MIT

Plasma Controlling and Actuation Technologies that

Enable Long Pulse Burning Plasma Science—Status and

Priorities

R. Boivin (GA), M. Austin (UT), T. Biewer (ORNL), D. Brower

(UCLA), E. Doyle (UCLA), G. McKee (UW), P. Snyder (GA)

Enhanced Validation of Performance-Defining Physics

through Measurement Innovation

Dylan Brennan, President, UFA, Phil Ferguson, ORNL,

Raymond Fonck, UWISC, Miklos Porkolab, MIT, Stewart

Prager, PPPL, Ned Sauthoff US ITER, Tony Taylor, GA

Perspectives on Ten-Year Planning for the Fusion Energy

Sciences Program

USBPO Diagnostics Topical Group: David L. Brower,

Leader. Theodore M. Biewer, Deputy, with R. Boivin, R.

Moyer, C. Skinner, D. Thomas, K. Tritz, and K. Young

A Burning Plasma Diagnostic Initiative for the US

Magnetic Fusion Energy Science Program

M. R. Brown, representing P. M. Bellan, S. A. Cohen, D.

Hwang, E. V. Belova. Swarthmore College

The role of compact torus research in fusion energy

science

Tom Brown, PPPL, A Personal View, U.S. Next Step Strategy for Magnetic Fusion

C. Denise Caldwell, NSF MPS-PHY NSF'S Plasma Physics Program

R.W. Callis, A. Garofalo, V. Chan, H. Guo, GA Applied Scientific Research to Prepare the Technology for

Blanket and Nuclear Components to Enable Design of the

Next-Step Burning Plasma Device (Status)

R.W. Callis, A. Garofalo, V. Chan, H. Guo, GA Applied Scientific Research to Prepare the Technology for

Blanket and Nuclear Components to Enable Design of the

Next-Step Burning Plasma Device (Initiative)

Appendix E: Community White Papers received for Status and Priorities, and Initiatives

53


C.S. Chang, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory First-Principles Simulation of the Whole Fusion Physics on

Leadership Class Computers, in collaboration with ASCR

scientists

B. Coppi, MIT Physics The High Field Compact Line of Experiment: From Alcator

to Ignitor and Beyond

R Paul Drake, University of Michigan Opportunities and Challenges in High-Energy-Density

Laboratory Plasmas

Philip C. Efthimion, PPPL OFES Stewardship of Plasma Science and its Partnering and

Leveraging Discovery Science

R. Fonck, UWISC, G. McKee, GA, D. Smith, PPPL Revitalizing university and national facility integration in

Fusion Energy Science

W. Fox, A. Bhattacharjee, H. Ji, K. Hill, I. Kaganovich, and

R. Davidson, PPPL, A. Spitkovsky, Princeton U., D.D.

Meyerhofer, R. Betti, D. Froula, and P. Nilson, U. Rochester,

D. Uzdensky and C. Kuranz, UMICH, R. Petrasso and C.K.

Li, MIT PSFC, S. Glenzer, SLAC

Laboratory astrophysics and basic plasma physics with

high-energy-density, laser-produced plasmas

E. Fredrickson, PPPL Some Recent Advances in Understanding of Energetic

Particle Driven Instabilities and Fast-ion Confinement

Andrea M. Garofalo and Tony S. Taylor, GA Leveraging International Collaborations to Accelerate

Development of the Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

(FNSF)

S. H. Glenzer, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory US leadership in Discovery Plasma & Fusion Science

R. Goldston, PPPL, B. LaBombard, D. Whyte, M. Zarnstorff,

MIT PSFC

A Strategy for Resolving the Problems of Plasma-Material

Interaction for FNSF

C.M. Greenfield for the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization Positioning the U.S. to Play a Leading Role in and Benefit

from a Successful ITER Research Program

Martin Greenwald, a personal view Implications and Lessons from 2007 Strategic Planning

Activity and Subsequent Events

H.Y. Guo, E.A. Unterberg, S.L. Allen, D.N. Hill, A.W. Leonard,

P.C. Stangeby, D.M. Thomas and DIII-D BPMIC Team

Developing Heat Flux and Advanced Material Solutions for

Next-Step Fusion Devices


54


W. Guttenfelder, E. Belova, N.N. Gorelenkov, S.M. Kaye, J.E.

Menard, M. Podesta, Y. Ren, and W.X. Wang, PPPL, D.L.

Brower, N. Crocker, W.A. Peebles, T.L. Rhodes, and L.

Schmitz, UCLA, J. Candy, G.M. Staebler, and R.E. Waltz,

GA, J. Hillesheim, CCFE, C. Holland, UCSD, J.H. Irby and

A.E. White, MIT, J.E. Kinsey, CompX, F.M. Levinton and H.

Yuh, Nova Photonics, M.J. Pueschel, UWisc

Validating electromagnetic turbulence and transpor t

effects for burning plasmas

G.W. Hammett, PPPL, with input from C.S. Chang, S. Kaye,

and A. H. Hakim, PPPL, A. Pletzer and J. Cary, Tech-X

An Advanced Computing Initiative To Study Methods of

Improving Fusion

R. J. Hawryluk PPPL, H. Berk UTEXAS, B. Breizman, UTEX-

AS, D. Darrow, PPPL, R. Granetz, MIT, D. Hillis, ORNL, A.

Kritz, LEHIGH, G. Navrati, COLUMBIA U., T. Rafiq, LEHIGH,

S. Sabbagh, COLUMBIA U, G. Wurden, LANL, and M. C.

Zarnstorff, PPPL

US Collaboration on JET D-T Experiments

David N. Hill, LLNL Develop the basis for PMI solutions for FNSF and DEMO

Matthew M. Hopkins, Sandia National Laboratories Overcoming Cultural Challenges to Increasing Reliance on

Predictive Simulation

W. Horton, H. L. Berk, C. Michoski, and D. Meyerson, UTEX-

AS Austin, I. Alvarado and L. Wenzel, National Instruments,

Austin, Texas, A. Molvik, D. Ryutov, T. Simonen, and B.

Hooper, LLNL, J. F. Santarius, UWISC

Fusion Science Facility to Evaluate Materials for Fusion

Reactors

P. W. Humrickhouse, M. Shimada, B. J. Merrill, L. C. Cadwal-

lader, and C. N. Taylor, Idaho National Laboratory

Tritium research needs in support of long-pulse burning

plasmas: gaps, status, and priorities


P. W. Humrickhouse, M. Shimada, B. J. Merrill, L. C.

Cadwallader, and C. N. Taylor, Idaho National Laboratory

Tritium research needs in support of long-pulse burning

plasmas: new initiatives

T. R. Jarboe, C. J. Hansen, A. C. Hossack, G. J. Marklin, K.

D. Morgan, B. A. Nelson, D. A. Sutherland, and B. S. Victor

Helicity Injected Torus (HIT) Current Drive Program

Thomas R. Jarboe PI, Richard Milroy Co-PI, Brian Nelson

Co-PI, and Uri Shumlak Co-PI, University of Washington,

Carl Sovinec PI, University of Wisconsin, Eric Held, Utah

State, Vyacheslav Lukin, NRL

Plasma Science and Innovation Center (PSI-Center) at

Washington, Wisconsin, Utah State, and NRL


55


T. R. Jarboe, C. J. Hansen, A. C. Hossack, G. J. Marklin, K.

D. Morgan, B. A. Nelson, R. Raman, D. A. Sutherland, B. S.

Victor, and S. You

An Imposed Dynamo Current Drive experiment: studying

and developing efficient current drive with sufficient

confinement at high temperature

For SCIDAC: S. Jardin, PPPL, N. Ferraro, GA, A. Glasser,

UWash, V. Izzo, UCSD, S. Kruger TechX, C. Sovinec, HRS

Fusion, H. Strauss, UWISC

Increased Understanding and Predictive Modeling of

Tokamak Disruptions

H. Ji for the WOPA Team Initiative for Major Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics

in Discovery Plasma Science in Fusion Energy Sciences

H. Ji, PPPL, C. Forest, UWISC, M. Mauel, Columbia U., S.

Prager, PPPL, J. Sarff, PPPL, and E. Thomas, Auburn U.

Initiative for a New Program Component for Intermediate-

scale Experiments in Discovery Plasma Science in Fusion

Energy Sciences

C. E. Kessel, P. W. Humrickhouse, N. Morley, S. Smolentsev,

M. E. Rensink, T. D. Rognlien

Critical Fusion Nuclear Material Science Activities

Required Over the Next Decade to Establish the Scientific

Basis for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

C. E. Kessel, J. P. Blanchard, A. Davis, L. El-Guebaly, N.

Ghoniem, P. W. Humrickhouse, A. Khodak, S. Malang, B.

Merrill, N. Morley, G. H. Neilson, F. M. Poli, M. E. Rensink, T. D.

Rognlien, A. Rowcliffe, S. Smolentsev, L. Snead, M. S. Tillack,

P. Titus, L. Waganer, A. Ying, K. Young, Y. Zhai Critica

Fusion Nuclear Material Science Activities Required Over

the Next Decade to Establish the Scientific Basis for a

Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

Mike Kotschenreuther, Swadesh Mahajan, Prashant Valanju,

Brent Covele, and Francois Waelbroeck, IFS, University of

Texas; Steve Cowley UKAEA, John Canik ORNL, Brian

LaBombard MIT, Houyang Guo, GA

Taming the Heat Flux Problem, Advanced Diver tors

towards Fusion Power

Predrag Krstić, Institute for Advanced Computational Sci-

ence, SBU, Igor Kaganovich, Daren Stotler, Bruce Koel,

PPPL

Priorities: Integrated Multi-Scale Divertor Simulation Project

Predrag Krstić, Institute for Advanced Computational Sci-

ence, SBU, Igor Kaganovich, Daren Stotler, Bruce Koel

PPPL

Initiatives: Integrated Multi-Scale Divertor Simulation Project

Mark J. Kushner, UMICH, EECS, Co-submitted by 28 other

scientists, at 22 other locations

A Low Temperature Plasma Science Program: Discovery

Science for Societal Benefit

Brian LaBombard, MIT PSFC High priority divertor and PMI research on the pathway to

FNSF/DEMO.


56


B. LaBombard, E. Marmar, J. Irby, J. Terry, R. Vieira, D.G.

Whyte, S. Wolfe, S. Wukitch, N. Asakura, W. Beck, P. Bonoli,

D. Brower, J. Doody, L. Delgado-Aparicio, R. Ellis, D. Ernst,

C. Fiore, R. Granetz, M. Greenwald, Z.S. Hartwig, A.

Hubbard, J.W. Hughes, I.H. Hutchinson, C. Kessel, M.

Kotschenreuther, S. Krasheninnikiov, R. Leccacorvi, Y. Lin,

B. Lipschultz, S. Mahajan, J. Minervini, R. Nygren, R.

Parker, F. Poli, M. Porkolab, M.L. Reinke, J. Rice, T. Rogn-

lien, W. Rowan, D. Ryutov, S. Scott, S. Shiraiwa, D. Terry, C.

Theiler, P. Titus, G. Tynan, M. Umansky, P. Valanju, F.

Waelbroeck, G. Wallace, A. White, J.R. Wilson, S.J. Zweben

ADX: a high field, high power density advanced divertor

tokamak experiment.

Mission: Develop and demonstrate plasma exhaust and

PMI physics solutions that scale to long pulse at FNSF/

DEMO divertor parameters.

T.C. Luce, R.J. Buttery, C.C. Petty, M.R. Wade, GA Preparing the Foundations for Burning Plasmas and

Steady-state Tokamak Operation

T.C. Luce, GA Missions and Priorities for the US Fusion Program—the Role

of Burning Plasma and Steady-State Tokamak Physics

N.C. Luhmann, Jr., A.V. Pham (UC Davis), T. Munsat

(U. Colorado)

Advanced Electronics Development for Fusion Diagnostics

R. Maingi, M.A. Jaworski, R. Kaita, R. Majeski, C.H. Skinner,

and D.P. Stotler, PPPL, J.P. Allain, D. Andruczyk, D. Currelli,

and D.N. Ruzic, Princeton University, B.E. Koel, UIUC

A Liquid Metal PFC Initiative

E. S. Marmar, on behalf of the MIT Alcator Team Priorities and Opportunities, White Paper for MIT/PSFC 10

Year Research Plan

E. S. Marmar, on behalf of the MIT Alcator Team

Initiatives led by the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Cen-

ter: Successful Completion of Alcator C-Mod and Transition

to a New, Advanced Divertor High-Field Tokamak Facility

M. Mauel, D. Garnier, J. Kesner, P. Michael, M. Porkolab, T.

Roberts, P. Woskov, Dept of Applied Physics and Applied

Math, Columbia U., MIT PSFC

Multi-University Research to Advance Discovery Fusion

Energy Science using a Superconducting Laboratory

Magnetosphere

J. Menard, R. Fonck, R. Majeski for the NSTX-U, Pegasus,

and LTX research teams

U.S. Spherical Tokamak Program Initiatives for the Next

Decade

T. Munsat (U. Colorado), N.C. Luhmann, Jr. (UC Davis), B.

Tobias (PPPL)

Center for Imaging and Visualization in Tokamak Plasmas


57


R. R. Parker, G-S. Baek, P. T. Bonoli, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin,

M. Porkolab, S. Shiraiwa, G. M. Wallace, S. J. Wukitch, D.

Whyte, MIT PSFC

RF Actuators for Steady-State Tokamak Development

R.D. Petrasso, R.P. Drake, and R.C. Mancini, members of

the Omega Laser Facility User Group (OLUG)

Oppositely directed laser beams at the OMEGE- EP Facility

for advancing HED Physics: A Finding and Recommenda-

tion of the Omega Laser Facility Users Group to FESAC

C. K. Phillips PPPL and P. T. Bonoli MIT, L. A. Berry, XCEL, N.

Bertelli, PPPL, D. D’Ippolito, Lodestar, D. L. Green, ORNL,

R.W. Harvey, CompX, E. F. Jaeger, XCEL, J. Myra, Lodestar,

Y. Petrov, CompX, M. Porkolab, S. Shiraiwa, MIT, D.N. Smithe,

TechX, E. J. Valeo, PPPL, and J. C. Wright, MIT

International Collaborative Initiative for RF Simulation Mod-

els in support of ITER and the ITER Integrated Modeling

Program: Status and Priorities

C. K. Phillips PPPL and P. T. Bonoli MIT, L. A. Berry, XCEL, N.

Bertelli, PPPL, D. D’Ippolito, Lodestar, D. L. Green, ORNL,

R.W. Harvey, CompX, E. F. Jaeger, XCEL, J. Myra, Lodestar,

Y. Petrov, CompX, M. Porkolab, S. Shiraiwa, MIT, D.N. Smithe,

TechX, E. J. Valeo, PPPL, and J. C. Wright, MIT

International Collaborative Initiative for RF Simulation Models

in support of ITER and the ITER Integrated Modeling Pro-

gram: Proposed Initiative

Leanne Pitchford, LAPLACE, CNRS and University of Tou-

louse III, France

The Plasma Data Exchange Project and the LXCat Platform

Leanne Pitchford, LAPLACE, CNRS and University of Tou-

louse, France

Resource request for the Plasma Data Exchange Project

and the LXCat platform

M. Podesta, D. Darrow, E. Fredrickson, G.-Y. Fu1, N. Gore-

lenkov, J. Menard, and R. White, PPPL, J. K. Anderson,

UWisc, W. Boeglin, FIU, B. Breizman, UTexas, D. Brennan,

Princeton U., A. Fasoli, CRPP/EPFL, Z. Lin, UCLA Irvine, S.

D. Pinches and J. Snipes, ITER, S. Tripathi, UCLA LA, M.

Van Zeeland, GA

Development of tools for understanding, predicting and

controlling fast ion driven instabilities in fusion plasmas

S. Prager, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory The PPPL Perspective on Ten Year Planning in Magnetic

Fusion

R. Prater, R.I. Pinsker, V. Chan, A. Garofalo, C. Petty, M.

Wade, GA

Optimize Current Drive Techniques Enabling Steady-State

Operation of Burning Plasma Tokamaks

R. Raman, UWash, T.R. Jarboe, UWash, J.E. Menard, S.P.

Gerhardt and M. Ono, PPPL

Development of a Fast Time Response Electromagnetic

Disruption Mitigation System


58


R. Raman, UWash, T.R. Jarboe, and B.A. Nelson, UWash, T.

Brown, J.E. Menard, D. Mueller, and M. Ono, PPPL

Simplifying the ST and AT Concepts

J. Rapp, D.L. Hillis, J.P. Allain, J.N. Brooks, H.Y. Guo, A. Has-

sanein, D. Hill, R. Maingi, D. Ruzic, O Schmitz, E. Scime, G.

Tynan

Material Facilities Initiative: MPEX and FMITS

S.A. Sabbagh and J.M. Hanson, Columbia U., N. Commaux,

ORNL, N. Eidietis, R. La Haye, and M. Walker, GAVE, S.P.

Gerhardt, E. Kolemen. J.E. Menard, PPPL, B. Granetz, MIT,

V. Izzo, UCSD, R. Raman, U. WASHINGTON, S. Woodruff,

Woodruff Scientific

Critical Need for Disruption Prediction, Avoidance, and

Mitigation in Tokamaks

Alla Safronova, Physics Department, University of Nevada Significance of Atomic Physics for Magnetically Confined

Fusion and High-Energy-Density Laboratory Plasmas, Sta-

tus, priorities, and initiatives white paper

J.S. Sarff, A.F. Almagri, J.K. Anderson, D.L. Brower, B.E.

Chapman, D. Craig, D.R. Demers, D.J. Den Hartog, W. Ding,

C.B. Forest, J.A. Goetz, K.J. McCollam, M.D. Nornberg, C.R.

Sovinec, P.W. Terry, and Collaborators

Oppor tunities and Context for Reversed Field Pinch

Research

Ann Satsangi, OFES DOE Discovery Plasma Science: A question on Facilities

T. Schenkel, P. Seidl, W. Waldron, A. Persaud, LBNL, John

Barnard and Alex Friedman, LLNL, E. Gilson, I. Kaganovich,

and R. Davidson, PPPL, A. Minor and P. Hosemann, Univer-

sity of California, Berkeley

Discovery Science with Intense, Pulsed Ion Beams

Peter Seidl, Thomas Schenkel, Arun Persaud, and W.L. Wal-

dron, LBNL, John Barnard and Alex Friedman, LLNL, Erik

Gilson, Igor Kaganovich, and Ronald Davidson, PPPL

Heavy-Ion-Driven Inertial Fusion Energy

David R. Smith, UWISC Data science and data accessibility at national fusion facilities

E.J. Strait, GA Establishing the Basis for Sustained Tokamak Fusion

through Stability Control and Disruption Avoidance: (I)

Present Status

E.J. Strait, GA Establishing the Basis for Sustained Tokamak Fusion

through Stability Control and Disruption Avoidance: (II)

Proposed Research


59


William Tang, PPPL Validated Integrated Fusion Simulations Enabled by

Extreme Scale Computing

P.W. Terry UWISC, Peter Catto MIT, Nikolai Gorelenkov PPPL,

Jim Myra LODESTAR, Dmitri Ryutov LLNL, Phil Snyder GA,

and F. Waelbroeck UTEXAS

Role of Analytic Theory in the US Magnetic Fusion Program

The University Fusion Association The Role of Universities in Discovery Science

Mickey R. Wade, GA, for the DIII-D Team Developing the Scientific Basis for the Burning Plasma Era

and Fusion Energy Development, (A 10-Year Vision for DIII-D)

Anne White, Paul Bonoli, Bob Granetz, Martin Greenwald,

Zach Hartwig, Jerry Hughes, Jim Irby, Brian LaBombard,

Earl Marmar, Miklos Porkolab, Syun’ichi Shiraiwa, Rui Vieira,

Greg Wallace, and Graham Wright, MIT, David Brower, Neal

Crocker, and Terry Rhodes, UCLA, Walter Guttenfelder,

PPPL, Chris Holland, UCSD, Nathan Howard, ORISE,

George McKee, UWISC

A new research initiative for “Validation Teams”

G. Wurden, S. Hsu, T. Intrator, C. Grabowski, J. Degnan, M.

Domonkos, P. Turchi, M. Herrmann, D. Sinars, M. Campbell

, R. Betti , D. Ryutov, B. Bauer, I. Lindemuth, R. Siemon, R.

Miller, M. Laberge, M. Delage

Magneto-Inertial Fusion

D. Whyte, MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Exploiting high magnetic fields from new superconductors

will provide a faster and more attractive fusion develop-

ment path

X. Q. Xu, LLNL International collaboration on theory, validation, and inte-

grated simulation

J. Freidberg, E. Marmar, MIT, H. Neilson , M. Zarnstorff,

PPPL

The Case for QUASAR (NCSX)

Thomas Klinger, Hans-Stephan Bosch, Per Helander, Thomas

Sunn Pedersen, Rober t Wolf Max-Planck Institute for

Plasma Physics

A Perspective on QUASAR

Thomas Klinger, Hans-Stephan Bosch, Per Helander, Thomas

Sunn Pedersen, Rober t Wolf Max-Planck Institute For

Plasma Physics

Status And Prospects Of The U.S. Collaboration With The

Max-Planck Institute For Plasma Physics On Stellarator

Research On The Wendelstein 7-X Device


60


H. Neilson, D. Gates, M. Zarnstorff, S. Prager, PPPL Management Strategy for QUASAR

Members of the National Stellarator Coordinating Committee Control of High-Performance Steady-State Plasmas: Status

of Gaps and Stellarator Solutions

Oliver Schmitz, UWISC, on behalf of U.S. stellarator collab-

orators

Development of 3-D diver tor solutions for stellarators

through coordinated domestic and international research

Matt Landreman, University of Maryland, on behalf of the

US Stellarator Coordinating Committee

3D theory and computation: A cost-effective means to

address “long-pulse” and “control” gaps


61


Appendix F: Community Workshops and Presentations

Week 8 (2–6 June):

1st Panel Meeting – Mon 1830 to Friday 1300 with 3-days of talks

Week 13 (7–11 July):

2nd Panel Meeting – Mon 1830 to Friday 1300 with 3-days of talks

3–5 June

Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 301-590-0044

9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD. 20878

“Heat Fluxes, Neutron Fluences, Long Pulse Length” [i.e., Burning Plasma: Long Pulse]

Tuesday (12 talks):

08:30 Fonck, Perspectives on 10-Year Planning for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program

09:00 Kessel, Critical Fusion Nuclear Material Science Activities Required Over the Next Decade to Establish

the Scientific Basis for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

09:30 Abdou, Scientific Framework for Advancing Blanket/FW/Tritium Fuel Cycle Systems towards

FNSF & DEMO Readiness

10:00 Wirth An Integrated, Component-level Approach to Fusion Materials Development

10:30 Break

10:45 Hill, Develop the Basis for PMI Solutions for FNSF

11:15 Callis, Applied Scientific Research for Blanket and Nuclear Components to Enable Design of the Next-Step

BP Device

11:45 Lunch

13:45 Zarnstorff, U.S. strategies for an innovative stellarator-based FNSF

14:15 Buttery, Establishing the Physics Basis for Sustaining a High b BP in Steady-State

14:45 Prater, Optimize Current Drive Techniques Enabling S-S Operation of BP Tokamaks

15:15 Break

15:35 Garofalo, Leveraging International Collaborations to Accelerate FNSF Development

16:05 Harris, Alternatives and prospects for development of the U.S. stellarator program

16:35 Landreman, 3D theory & computation as a major driver for advances in stellarators

“Astrophysical Phenomena, Plasma Control Important for Industrial Applications” [i.e., Discovery Science]

Wednesday (12 talks):

08:40 Glenzer, High-Energy Density science at 4th generation Light Sources

09:10 Seidl, Heavy-Ion-Driven Inertial Fusion Energy

62


09:40 Schenkel, Discovery Science with Intense, Pulsed Ion Beams

10:10 Break

10:30 Jarboe, A pre-Proof-of-Principle experiment of a spheromak formed and sustained by Imposed Dynamo

Current-Drive (IDCD)

11:00 Ji, Major Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics

11:30 Lunch

13:15 Petrasso, Oppositely directed laser beams at OMEGA-EP for advancing HED Physics: A Finding & Recommendation

of the Omega Laser Users Group

13:45 Fox, Lab astrophysics & basic plasma physics with HED, laser-produced plasmas

14:15 Drake, R. P, Challenges and Opportunities in High-Energy-Density Lab Plasmas

14:45 Break

15:05 Kushner, Science Issues in Low Temperature Plasmas: Overview, Progress, Needs

15:35 Raitses, Plasma Science Associated with Modern Nanotechnology

16:05 Donnelly, Ignition Delays in Pulsed Tandem Inductively Coupled Plasmas System

16:35 Kaganovich, DoD’s Multi-Institution Collaborations for Discovery Science

“Discovery Science, Advanced Measurement for Validation,” [i.e., Discovery Science]

Thursday (12 talks):

08:40 Wurden, Long-pulse physics via international stellarator collaboration

09:10 Schmitz, Development of 3-D divertor solutions for stellarators through coordinated domestic and

international research

09:40 Krstic, Multiscale, integrated divertor plasma-material simulation

10:10 Break

10:30 Sarff, Opportunities and Context for Reversed Field Pinch Research

11:00 Mauel, Multi-University Research to Advance Discovery Fusion Energy Science using a Superconducting

Laboratory Magnetosphere

11:30 Lunch

13:15 Ji, Importance of Intermediate-scale Experiments in Discovery Plasma Science

13:45 Efthimion, Office of Science Partnerships and Leveraging of Discovery Science

14:15 Brennan, The Role of Universities in Discovery Science in the FES Program

14:45 Break

15:05 Whyte, Exploiting high magnetic fields from new superconductors will provide a faster and more attractive fusion

development path

15:35 Minervini, Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable U.S. Fusion Program

16:05 Parker, RF Actuators for Steady-State Tokamak Development

16:35 LaBombard, A nationally organized, advanced divertor tokamak test facility is needed to demonstrate plasma

exhaust and PMI solutions for FNSF/DEMO

63


8–10 July

Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 301-590-0044

9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD. 20878

Tuesday July 8 Meeting (16 talks)

08:30 Zohm, ASDEX-Upgrade

09:05 Horton, JET

09:40 Guo, EAST

10:15 Break

10:45 Kwak, KSTAR

11:20 Kamada, The JT-60SA research regimes for ITER and DEMO

11:55 Litaudon, EUROfusion Roadmap

12:25 Litaudon, WEST facility

13:00 Lunch

14:15 Menard, NSTX-U: ST research to accelerate fusion development

14:45 Majeski, LTX: Exploring the advantages of liquid lithium walls

15:15 Fonck, Initiatives in non-solenoidal startup and edge stability dynamics at near-unity aspect ratio in the

PEGASUS experiment

15:45 Break

16:00 Marmar, Successful completion of Alcator C-Mod, and transition to a new, advanced divertor facility (ADX)

to solve key challenges in PMI and development of the steady-state tokamak: Maintaining world-leadership

on the high magnetic field path to fusion

16:30 Wade, DIII-D 10-year vision: Develop the scientific basis for burning plasma experiments and fusion

energy development

17:00 Raman, Simplifying the ST and AT concepts

17:30 Guo, Developing plasma-based divertor solutions for next step devices

18:00 Coppi, The high-field compact line of experiments: From Alcator to Ignitor & beyond

18:30 Freidberg, MIT-PSFC makes the case for QUASAR

19:00 Public Meeting Adjourns for the day

Wednesday July 9 Meeting (15 talks)

08:30 Greenwald, Implications and lessons from 2007 strategic planning activity and subsequent events:

A personal view

09:00 Meade, U.S. road map activity

09:30 Taylor, A U.S. domestic program in the ITER era

10:00 Greenfield, USBPO high priority research in support of ITER

10:30 Break

11:00 Boivin, Enhanced Validation of Performance-Defining Physics through Measurement Innovation

11:30 White, Advanced diagnostics for validation in high-performance toroidal confinement experiments

12:00 Crocker, Validating electromagnetic turbulence and transport effects for burning plasmas

12:30 Brower, A burning plasma diagnostic technology initiative for the U.S. magnetic fusion energy science program

64


13:00 Lunch

14:45 Petty, Preparing for burning plasma operation and exploitation in ITER

15:15 Sabbagh, Critical need for disruption prediction, avoidance, and mitigation in tokamaks

15:45 Strait, Stability control, disruption avoidance, and mitigation

16:15 Jardin, Increased understanding and predictive modeling of tokamak disrupttions

16:45 Break

17:00 Podesta, Development of tools for understanding, predicting and controlling fast-ion-driven instabilities in

burning plasmas

17:30 Fu, Integrated simulation of performance-limiting MHD and energetic particle instabilities with

micro-turbulence

18:00 Goldston, A strategy for resolving problems of plasma-material interaction for FNSF


Thursday July 10 Meeting (16 talks)

08:30 Tang, Validated integrated fusion simulations enabled by extreme scale computing

09:00 Snyder, Crossing the threshold to prediction-driven research and device design

09:30 Hammett, Integrated computing initiative to predict fusion device performance and study possible improvements

10:00 Chang, First-principles simulation of whole fusion device on leadership class high-performance computers

in collaboration with ASCR scientists

10:30 Break

11:00 Xu, International collaboration on theory, validation, and integrated simulation

11:30 Phillips, International collaborative initiative for RF simulation models in support of ITER and the ITER integrated

modeling program

12:00 Catto, Unique opportunities to advance theory and simulations of RF heating & current drive and core & pedestal

physics at reactor relevant regimes in the Advanced Divertor Experiment

12:30 Terry, Role of analytic theory in the U.S. magnetic fusion program

13:00 Lunch

14:15 Hillis, Materials facilities initiative

14:45 Unterberg, Advanced Materials Validation in Toroidal Systems for Next-Step Devices

15:15 Maingi, A liquid-metal plasma-facing-component initiative

15:45 Jaworski, Liquid metal plasma-material interaction science and component development toward integrated

demonstration

16:15 Allain, Establishing the surface science and engineering of liquid-metal plasma-facing components

16:45 Break

17:00 Baylor, Plasma controlling and sustainment technologies that enable long-pulse burning plasma science

17:30 Gekelman, The Basic Plasma Science Facility – Upgrade for the next decade & beyond

18:00 Prager, The PPPL perspective on the charge to the FESAC strategic planning panel


65


Appendix G: Leveraging and Partnership Opportunities with DOE, other Federal and International Partners

Narratives

Chapter 5, concerning leveraging and partnership opportu-

nities, summarized opportunities for the U.S. fusion energy

program by means of two tables, relegating more detailed

discussion to this appendix. Below are descriptions of each

of these opportunities, organized by the Office within DOE

Science (ASCR, HEP, NP, BES), other DOE programs (FE,

EERE, NE, NNSA), other non-DOE federal programs (NSF,

NIST, DOD, NASA), and international partnerships.

DOE Office of Science Programs

Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)

The U.S. is recognized as the world leader in magnetic

fusion theory, simulation, and computation. This capability

would not be as strong without the FES-ASCR partnership,

which is exemplary within the Office of Science. The part-

nership of vibrant collaborations is enabled by the jointly-

sponsored Scient i f ic Discover y through Advance

Computing (SciDAC) Program and the use of ASCR high-

performance computer facilities at Oak Ridge, Argonne,

and Berkeley. SciDAC contributes to the FES goal of devel-

oping the predictive capability needed for a sustainable

fusion energy source by exploiting the emerging capabili-

ties of petascale computing and associated progress in

software and algorithm development. The partnership has

resulted in projects that develop applications of high phys-

ics fidelity simulation codes to advance the fundamental

science of magnetically confined plasmas. Potential new

partner include the ASCR Applied Mathematics, Computer

Science, and Uncertainty and Quantification (UQ) Pro-

grams, and their Exascale Co-Design Centers (e.g., the

Center for Exascale Simulation of Advanced Reactors led

by Argonne National Laboratory).

Basic Energy Sciences (BES)

FES and BES have established a successful partnership

with the construction and operation of the Materials in

Extreme Conditions (MEC) end station at the Linac Coherent

Light Source, a BES National User Facility at SLAC. Despite

HEDLP program reductions within Discovery Plasmas Sci-

ence, FES has maintained this partnership.

In addition, there has been a 30-year fusion materials

irradiation program, in collaboration with Japan, which uses

the HFIR Reactor, a BES National User Facility. Accomplish-

ments include studies of low activation ferritic steels irradi-

ated up 120 displacements per atom, and advanced

radiation resistant silicon carbide composites and ODS

steels that have high resistance to high temperature creep.

The silicon carbide and ODS steels also benefit advanced

fission reactors.

Important new opportunities include high fidelity char-

acterization of irradiated materials and in-situ corrosion

mechanisms using BES materials characterization user

facilities. There are potentially important synergies between

fusion materials research and fundamental BES research

programs on defects in materials and mechanical proper-

ties. Fusion-specific conditions (relevant He/dpa irradia-

tions, etc.) will generally only be supported by FES, but

important fundamental radiation effects information may be

gleaned from some BES projects. Other oppor tunities

include access to characterize irradiated materials at syn-

chrotron beam lines (including neutron irradiated and pos-

sible in situ ion ir radiation), and world class electron

microscopy characterization facilities have also been heav-

ily utilized by fusion materials researchers over the years.

The most cost-effective approach to develop a fusion

materials irradiation facility is to use one of the existing MW-

level spallation sources. FES has supported an engineering

design study for a Fusion Materials Irradiation Test Stand

(FMITS) at the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge that

is operated by BES. The benefits to FES are substantial,

while the benefits to BES are not apparent. Acceptable risk

levels for SNS operations must be achieved.

High Energy Physics (HEP)

Superconducting magnets are a critical technology for

long-pulse experiments and will determine the freedom in

design parameters, manufacturability, and cost of an actual

fusion plant. Currently the magnet program within the Office

of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) is modest but has benefit-

66


ed from a collaborative relationship with the Office of High

Energy Physics (HEP) for many years, which has a deeper

and better funded magnet effor t as part of its General

Accelerator R&D program. Historically, the coordination on

Nb3Sn-based magnets has been strong, where FES and

HEP have exchanged expertise in reviews, and jointly fund-

ed Small Business Innovative Research solicitations. One

driver for HEP's magnet development in recent years has

been the Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment (MICE), which

the recent P5 report has recommended for early termina-

tion. Nevertheless, the US LHC Accelerator Research Pro-

gram (US LARP) continues to support magnet development

at BNL, FNAL and LBNL.

In regard to High Temperature Superconductor (HTS)

research, FES and HEP have collaborated fruitfully in the

past, but their fundamental interests in HTS are diverging

(higher field ring magnets for HEP, lower cryopower require-

ments for FES) and consequently so are their specific pur-

suits in conductors. Never theless, there is interest in

sharing of conductor testing and testing facilities. In light of

the LHC upgrade, CERN represents a potentially interesting

partner for FES. The National High Magnetic Field Labora-

tory (NHMFL), supported by the NSF, performs research on

very high field HTS magnets and some of that work is

strongly congruent with the interests of FES. In fact, the Mag-

net Lab has adopted the cable-in-conduit conductor (CICC)

for the design of all their large bore high field magnets.

Nuclear Physics (NP)

Improved fast-neutron cross sections are a pressing need

for fusion reactor materials. As an example, it is important to

reduce the error bars in the fast neutron cross sections for

tungsten, the material chosen for the ITER diverter. Recently

the DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Nuclear Data Program

undertook a program-wide review and a radical updating of

their mission and modus operandi, the end of which repre-

sents a significant opportunity for the Fusion Energy Pro-

gram. In contrast to how the Nuclear Data Program

operated in the past (curation and archiving of published

data largely by A-chain [mass number]), the new program

identifies Nuclear Engineering and Applications as a pri-

mary client for nuclear data, prioritizes the evaluation of

nuclear data according to community needs, and supports

experimentation to fill in critical missing data. The new mis-

sion includes the support of education and training of stu-

dents and will ensure the continuity of nuclear data

expertise for coming generations. This is a welcome devel-

opment and the fusion community should take advantage

of the opportunity by doing an internal prioritization of their

nuclear data needs and communicate with the Nuclear

Data Office.

Other DOE Programs

Fossil Energy (FE)

Fusion materials systems based on advanced ferritic/mar-

tensitic steels share several of the high performance struc-

tural materials issues encountered in recent supercritical

Rankine cycle and proposed ultra-supercritical Rankine

cycle fossil energy plants. These issues include develop-

ment of new steels that are resistant to aging and thermal

creep degradation at high temperatures, as well as some

aspects of thermal creep-fatigue structural design criteria.

Indeed, the current leading approach for developing new

high performance steels in both fossil and fusion energy

systems is based on computational thermodynamics to

identify promising new compositions and thermomechani-

cal treatments that will produce ultra-fine scale, highly sta-

ble precipitates. Much of the steel production, joining, and

mechanical testing infrastructure, as well as some of the

corrosion test equipment, are directly relevant for fusion.

The FE Carbon Capture Simulation Initiative at NETL is a

hub-like entity that should have some synergies with FES,

such as the linear and nonlinear partial differential equation

solvers, parallel communication constructs and libraries,

verification and validation and uncertainty quantification

tools and methodologies, build and testing tools, and data

analytics.

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

Advanced materials processing studies performed for EERE

programs are directly relevant to fusion structural materials

applications. These studies include fundamental investiga-

tions on the utility of additive manufacturing for producing

high-performance components that would be difficult or

67


impossible to fabricate using conventional means, and

explorations of incorporating embedded sensors and other

"smart material" systems. The EERE studies are complemen-

tary to BES materials research in that they typically focus

on industrial-scale practical issues, similar to the case for

FE programs.

The EERE Critical Materials Institute (CMI) Hub, led by

the Ames Laboratory, is focused on searching for replace-

ment materials for rare earth magnets that are less relevant

to fusion. However, the Hub construct could offer a better

way to manage future FES large and complex programs.

The CMI brings together scientists and engineers from

diverse disciplines to address challenges in critical materi-

als, including mineral processing, manufacture, substitu-

tion, efficient use, and end-of-life recycling. The institute

also integrates scientific research, engineering innovation,

manufacturing and process improvements in order to find a

holistic solution to the materials challenges facing the nation.

Nuclear Energy (NE)

NE investments in the past several decades in infrastructure

and materials research will be of significant value to FES as

it moves toward a Fusion Nuclear Science (FNS) Program.

These investments include hot cell facilities across the DOE

complex, modeling and simulation, fast reactor materials

development, and waste management.

Several leveraging opportunities exist between fusion

and fission technologies. In particular, many of the struc-

tural materials and coolant systems for fusion and Genera-

tion IV fission reactor concepts are common to both (e.g.,

ferritic/martensitic steels, oxide dispersion strengthened

steels, ceramic matrix composites, liquid lead alloy and

alkali metal coolants, and helium-cooled systems). The

structural materials for fusion and Generation IV fission con-

cepts share qualitatively similar requirements to withstand

high displacement damage and high operating temperature

environments and require comparably high performance

specifications. Valuable information on operating large nucle-

ar reactors is also of practical importance for fusion designs.

Additional opportunities exist with NE development and

application of advanced modeling and simulation tools for

nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, fuel cycle, etc. The most

prominent are the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of

Light Water Reactors (CASL) Hub, led by Oak Ridge Nation-

al Laboratory, and the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling

and Simulation (NEAMS) program led by Argonne National

Laboratory. Additionally, there are the Light Water Reactor

Sustainability and Fuel Cycle R&D Programs. FES connec-

tions would include infrastructure, multi-physics coupling,

V&V/UQ, material science, and radiation transport.

Finally, NE could be a useful interface with the NRC in

managing fusion nuclear safety and regulatory require-

ments. Future fusion power plants will offer a fundamentally

different safety paradigm compared with fission reactors

and should follow a tailored licensing approach very differ-

ent from fission; otherwise this could be a barrier to fusion

energy development. At present, no country has fusion-

specific regulatory framework for power plant construction

and operation, although DOE has safety guidelines for U.S.

experimental fusion facilities, as does France for the ITER

facility. Consultation with regulatory experts (NRC, DOE, util-

ities, foreign regulatory bodies) is needed to understand

options for a U.S. fusion regulatory approach.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

NNSA has two significant partnerships with the Office of

Science relevant to FES mission: Advanced Scientific Com-

puting (ASC) and High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas

(HEDLP). High performance computer (HPC) platforms have

been developed for visualization and data analytics, multi-

physics coupling, MHD, plasma physics, turbulence,

charged particle transport, and radiation transport. The

NNSA-ASCR partnership to develop the next generation HPC

(TRINITY – NERSC-8) will enable fusion scientists to maintain

world-leading performance. There is also the NNSA Predic-

tive Science Academic Alliance Program created to establish

validated, large-scale, multidisciplinary, simulation-based

“Predictive Science” as major academic and applied

research programs.

An important element of the FES HEDLP program is the

Joint NNSA-SC program, which supports discovery plasma

science research addressing critical issues in inertial fusion

energy sciences and non-mission-driven high energy

density plasmas. The program also explores ways to create,

68


probe, and control new states of matter at very high energy

densities. However, this partnership has suffered in recent

years from reduced FES support. Remaining FES program

resources are focused on their LCLS MEC Station. Signifi-

cant HEDLP discovery science oppor tunities exist on

several world leading NNSA-operated laser and pulsed-

power facilities. FES support of academic research teams

to use NNSA-supported facilities represents a cost-effec-

tive option for FES discovery science. FES potential funding

of the users of these facilities would go a long way toward

building FES’s reputation and engaging NNSA in HEDLP

science workforce development.

Non-DOE Federal Programs

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and

Engineering was developed in part in response to the 1995

National Research Council report, Plasma Science, that

reaffirmed plasma science as a fundamental discipline cov-

ering broad set of scientific and technological areas. The

purpose of the partnership is to: encourage synergy and

complementarity between the research programs support-

ed by the two agencies; provide enhanced opportunities

for university-based research in fundamental processes

in plasma science and engineering; stimulate plasma sci-

ence and engineering education in U.S. universities, and;

avoid duplication of effort. Research activities directly relat-

ed to fusion energy are excluded.

Support by both agencies is excellent as evidenced

by joint program announcements, and reviews of proposals

and project performances. The agencies also share over-

sight and support for the operation of the world’s only basic

plasma physics user facility, the Large Area Plasma

Device at UCLA. This facility enables a broad group of

plasma researchers to carry out experiments that would not

be possible on smaller facilities at their respective institu-

tions. Mutual benefits include credibility in basic plasma

science pursuits and stewardship, synergistic budget

elasticity, and the ability to conduct joint General Plasma

Science programs between DOE Laboratories and univer-

sity Plasma Science Centers.

National Institute Of Standards & Technology (NIST)

In general, NIST offers the potential for complementary

materials R&D that spans everything from nanoscience to

advanced manufacturing. Currently there are efforts being

made to establish a strong collaboration with NIST, but the

opportunity should be pursued.

Since the early 1960s, NIST has been a leading center

in plasma spectroscopy. Critical compilations of energy lev-

els, wavelengths, and atomic transition probabilities, as well

as benchmark experimental measurements of atomic data,

have set a standard that is now embodied in the online

Atomic Spectra Database and associated bibliographic

databases. This resource serves in excess of 70,000 sepa-

rate requests for data every month. Many of the requests

come from researchers who use the data for fusion plasma

diagnostics or simulations related to fusion energy. The data-

base has been supported by NIST and DOE since 1975.

NIST plasma-relevant programs are miniscule com-

pared to FES, so NIST could significantly increase its efforts

on plasma-related atomic spectroscopy with a small DOE-

FES investment (less than $1M/year). This investment could

have high impact on specific research problems for discov-

ery plasma science, specifically low-temperature plasmas.

Department Of Defense (DOD)

FES-DOD partnerships have been challenging because of

the defense agency’s mission approach to funding

research. Several DOD branches have capabilities and

infrastructure complementary to those of FES. For example,

the Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition

Tools and Environments (CREATE) program, started by a

former FES principal investigator, is designed to improve

DOD acquisition with advanced computational engineering

design tools. Synergy with FES includes infrastructure,

multi-physics, and V&V/UQ.

The Air Force Office of Scientific Research has been a

strong supporter of applied plasma science, most notably

high-power microwaves, novel acceleration mechanisms,

and electrodynamics through their Plasma and Electro-

Energetic Physics Program. Infrastructure at the Air Force

Research Laboratory (AFRL) has been used by the FES

HEDLP program.

69


The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is involved in

activities related to the understanding of HEDLP produced

by pulsed power generators or high intensity, short pulse

lasers. It has made significant contributions to the design,

development, prediction, and analysis of intense plasma

x-ray radiation sources by employing state-of-the-art atomic

physics, radiation physics and magneto-hydrodynamics

modeling. NRL is also working on interactions of an ultra-

intense short pulse laser with a solid and cluster targets. NRL

also has research efforts in the science and technologies of

inertial confinement fusion (supported by NNSA), the devel-

opment and applications of high-power pulsed electron

beams and high-energy lasers pumped by such beams.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) also

supports individual grants to FES PIs in HED Physics.

National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)

FES and NASA share an interest in high-heat flux technolo-

gies and high-temperature structural materials. Currently

there are no active FES-NASA collaborations, but there has

been some limited mutually beneficial research on develop-

ment of ceramic matrix composites such as SiC/SiC.

NASA also represents an opportunity for advancing

discovery in plasma science. Taking advantage of this

opportunity does not require a partnership because NASA

issues funding opportunity announcements of its own.

While the plasma-relevant programs of NASA outweigh

DOE-FES in terms of strength, the Panel was informed that

FES outreach to NASA has not been successful, possibly

because of different missions, cultures, and the lack of

mutual benefit.

International Partnership Opportunities

Thorough assessments of international collaboration oppor-

tunities were performed by a community task force commis-

sioned by the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization in 2011 and

by FESAC in 2012 [Appendix H]. Although these studies did

not consider trade-offs between domestic and international

programs in the context of constrained FES budgets, their

evaluation criteria, recommended modes of collaboration,

and research priorities (extending high-performance regimes

to long pulse, development and integration of plasma wall

solutions for fusion, and burning plasma research in

advance of ITER) remain valid.

Building on the 2012 FESAC report, the Panel also

spent considerable time comparing FES international col-

laborations with those supported by the DOE HEP program.

Analogies can be drawn between large FES and HEP facili-

ties, e.g., a particle physics detector and a fusion diagnos-

tic, and particle physics accelerator systems (e.g., vacuum,

cavities, magnets, RF, instrumentation and controls, targets

and beam stops, modeling and simulation) and tokamak

systems (e.g., vacuum, neutral beam injectors, fueling,

magnets, RF, instrumentation and controls, first walls and

divertors, modeling and simulation). While mutually benefi-

cial international opportunities to produce fusion science

on leading edge fusion facilities were apparent, the Panel

noted some reluctance from the fusion community to seize

those opportunities. A similar reaction occurred with the

HEP community physicists several years ago, but those

international collaborations are now welcomed, with a sig-

nificant fraction of personnel time and effort occurring at

home institutions designing, building, testing, and calibrat-

ing detector and accelerator systems and sub-systems,

and performing remote shifts, modeling, and analysis of

international facility data.

While a majority of high energy physicists in the U.S.

perform research at various global facilities, FES participa-

tion in international experiments is an order of magnitude

lower. Moreover, non-ITER international partnership trends

over the past several years reveal a reduction in FES sup-

port at a time when there have been no new MFE U.S. facil-

ities and only one major upgrade in the last 15 years. At the

same time, several new and upgraded fusion facilities have,

or will, become available in Asia and Europe (Table II). Les-

sons and practices reported in the 2012 International Col-

laborations FESAC Report provide a good starting point.

The Panel insists, however that a good strategic plan should

not stipulate “our” machine or “their” machine, but the

“right” machine – the U.S. should engage in international exper-

iments where there is a compelling need for specific data.

In addition to the large fusion plasma experimental

facilities, there have been numerous long-standing effective

international collaborations, ranging from information sharing

70


via IEA working groups that has accelerated the develop-

ment of several high performance fusion materials, to cost-

sharing formal bilateral collaborations with JAEA and MEXT

researchers that utilize unique U.S. facilities such as the

RTNS-II D-T fusion neutron facility, the Tritium Science Test

Assembly, and high flux fission reactors and advanced hot

cell facilities.

Similar international collaborations have been useful for

the design of fusion neutron sources such as the proposed

International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF),

based on an earlier U.S. design. There are potential oppor-

tunities for U.S. fusion researchers to gain access to unique

foreign facilities such as large scale corrosion and thermo-

mechanical test loop facilities, high heat flux and plasma

material interaction facilities, tokamak diverter exposure

facilities (WEST, EAST, ASDEX, etc.), tritium facilities, and

with operational, safety, and regulatory experts on how to

best develop a performance-based regulatory basis for

fusion power (Canada, IAEA, JET, ITER).

Finally, the Panel recognizes FES partnerships enabled

by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and by the Inter-

national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which facilitates

international communication via its biannual Nuclear Fusion

conference, its journal, and other relevant activities.. As a

member of the IAEA, the U.S. benefits from information col-

lected and shared at the IAEA fusion biannual Nuclear

Fusion Conference and Journal, workshops, committees,

and coordinated research projects (CRPs). Leveraging this

type of international coordinated research with domestic

programs would enable greater impact for FES investments.

Some fusion science CRPs have been performed on several

topics relevant to next-step fusion devices, ODS steels and

irradiation facilities. In addition to the materials working

group, the IEA has a large number of working groups in

nearly all areas of fusion science, including the fusion tech-

nology and environment, safety and economics. The work-

ing groups typically meet at least annually.

71


Appendix H: References

In Chapter 4: Discovery Plasma Science, 20 citations to

prior reports, prior studies, and various websites are made,

which are listed here.

1. NRC Plasma 2010 Plasma Science Committee report

[National Research Council. Plasma Science: Advanc-

ing Knowledge in the National Interest. Washington,

DC: The National Academies Press, 2007, Copyright ©

National Academy of Sciences]

2. For a description of NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic

Plasma Science and Engineering, see http://www.nsf.

gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5602

3. Low Temperature Plasma Science Workshop report

(2007) details available at http://science.energy.gov/fes/

news-and-resources/workshop-reports/

4. Research Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics report

(2011) details available at http://w3.pppl.gov/confer-

ences/2010/WOPA/index.html

5. See BaPSF publication list at http://plasma.physics.

ucla.edu/page/publications.html

6. See Center for Predictive Control of Plasma Kinetics:

Multi-phase and Bounded Systems at the University of

Michigan Research Highlights at http://doeplasma.

eecs.umich.edu/research

7. For more information about the LCLS MEC, see https://

portal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/Instruments/

mec/Pages/default.aspx

8. See the LCLS MEC publication list at https://portal.slac.

stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/Pages/Publications_

MEC.aspx

9. FESAC Toroidal Alternates Panel report (2008) details

available at http://science.energy.gov/fes/fesac/reports

and at https://fusion.gat.com/tap/

10. For background information about MST, see http://plas

ma.physics.wisc.edu/viewpage.php?id=mst

11. See MST publication list at http://plasma.physics.wisc.

edu/publications/publications-for-experiment.

php?experiment=MST

12. The most recent HTPD conference website with links to

papers presented can be viewed at http://web.ornl.gov/

sci/fed/HTPD2014/

13. Details about the NSF’s Major Research Instrumenta-

tion Program can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/fund-

ing/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5260

14. For background information on BAPSF, see http://plas-

ma.physics.ucla.edu/index.html

15. For background information on FLARE, see http://mrx.

pppl.gov

16. For background information on MPDX, see http://plas-

ma.physics.wisc.edu/mpdx

17. For background information on MDPX, see http://psl.

physics.auburn.edu/research/magnetized-dusty-plas-

mas.html

18. The HEDLP Basic Research ReNeW repor t can be

found at http://science.energy.gov/fes/news-and-

resources/workshop-reports/

19. FESAC Panel on HEDLP Report (January 2009) details

available at http://science.energy.gov/fes/fesac/reports/

20. For details about the “Committee of Visitors” see http://

science.energy.gov/sc-2/committees-of-visitors/

21. For the SC description of User Facilities and User Pro-

grams see http://science.energy.gov/user-facilities

A major reference for the Panel is the 2009 Report of the

Research Needs Workshop (ReNeW) for Magnetic Fusion

Energy Sciences, which identified the research frontiers of

the fusion program and outlined eighteen Thrust activities

that will most effectively advance those frontiers.

72


References used are listed here, with website links avail-

able on the FESAC Strategic Planning Panel website and

elsewhere:

https://www.burningplasma.org/activities/?article=2014%20

FESAC%20Strategic%20Planning%20Panel

FESAC Report on Magnetic Fusion Energy Program Priori-

ties (2012)

FESAC Prioritization of Scientific User Facilities during

2014-2024 (2013)

China CFETR Plan (2013)

Fusion Electricity: A roadmap to the realisation of fusion

energy (EU, November 2012)

Annexes to Fusion Electricity: A roadmap to the realisation

of fusion energy (EU, 2012)

FESAC Fusion Materials Sciences and Technology Oppor-

tunities in the ITER Era (2012)

FESAC Opportunities and Modes of International Collabo-

ration During the ITER Era (2012)

Fusion Nuclear Science Pathways Assessment (2011)

Workshop on Opportunities for Plasma Astrophysics report.

(2010)

High-Energy-Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) Basic

Needs Workshop Report (2009)

Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences Research Needs Work-

shop (ReNeW) Study (2009)

Low Temperature Plasma Science Workshop Report (2008)

FESAC 'Priorities, Gaps and Opportunities' Report (2007)

The National Academics report "Plasma Science: Advanc-

ing Knowledge in the National Interest" (2007)

Fusion Simulation Project Research Needs Workshop

Report (2007)

Strategic Program Plan for Fusion Energy Sciences (2004)

FESAC A Plan for the Development of Fusion Energy (2003)

Fusion Electricity: A roadmap to the realisation of fusion

energy (EU, November 2012)

Annexes to Fusion Electricity: A roadmap to the realisation

of fusion energy (EU, 2012)

FESAC Fusion Materials Sciences and Technology Oppor-

tunities in the ITER Era (2012)

FESAC Opportunities and Modes of International Collabo-

ration During the ITER Era (2012)

Fusion Nuclear Science Pathways Assessment (2011)

Workshop on Opportunities for Plasma Astrophysics report.

(2010)

High-Energy-Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP) Basic

Needs Workshop Report (2009)

Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences Research Needs Work-

shop (ReNeW) Study (2009)

Low Temperature Plasma Science Workshop Report (2008)

FESAC 'Priorities, Gaps and Opportunities' Report (2007)

The National Academics report "Plasma Science: Advanc-

ing Knowledge in the National Interest" (2007)

Fusion Simulation Project Research Needs Workshop

Report (2007)

Strategic Program Plan for Fusion Energy Sciences (2004)

FESAC A Plan for the Development of Fusion Energy (2003)

report on strategic planning: priorities assessment and ...€¦ · report on strategic planning:...

Documents